Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIED IRISH BANKS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 2 February 1993.

DUNHAM BRIDGE (AMENDMENT) BILL

Read a Second time, and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

LETCHWORTH GARDEN CITY

HERITAGE FOUNDATION BILL

Read a Second time, and committed.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 4) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH WATERWAYS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

CROSSRAIL BILL (By Order)

EAST COAST MAIN LINE (SAFETY) BILL (By Order)

GREATER MANCHESTER

(LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) BILL [Lords] (By Order)

WOODGRANGE PARK CEMETERY BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

RIVER HUMBER

(UPPER BURCOM COOLING WORKS) BILL [Lords]
(By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read

To be read a Second time on Thursday 4 February 1993.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Potato Regime

Mr. Dunn: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects the draft potato regime proposals to be next considered by the EC Council.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Curry): The December Agriculture Council decided to consider the proposals again as soon as the European Parliament has given its opinion.

Mr. Dunn: With regard to the supply of potatoes from within the United Kingdom, does the Minister question, as I do, the sense of restricting what is grown here while permitting broad access for potato products from Europe?

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend has a good point. At the moment there is no Community regime. The United Kingdom has its own system, based on acreage quotas and guaranteed payments. Nobody else has that system. If we moved to a Europewide regime and maintained our existing system intact, United Kingdom growers, uniquely, would face limitations while nobody else would. We should have to reflect on whether that would be in the interests of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. John D. Taylor: As the Minister here, rather than a Minister at Stormont, has the responsibility of making representations on the potato industry to the European Community, and as there is a major crisis in the Northern Ireland potato industry due to poor weather conditions throughout the year, has the Minister yet made any representations to the Community about special support for that industry in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Curry: No, we have not. We have to discuss the future of the potato regime, which is crucial to the United Kingdom, especially as we now import more than half a million tonnes per year mainly of frozen chips. Our overwhelming priority is to settle the uncertainty that follows on the proposals, so that we all know exactly where we stand. Where we can give particular help to areas with particular problems, we shall find out what realistic opportunity there is to do so, consistent with Community rules and being fair to all producers in the United Kingdom.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister not aware that in the European Parliament a resolution was passed unanimously because of what happened to the recent potato harvest both in the Irish Republic and in Northern Ireland? Is the Minister aware of what the Commissioner said, and the promise that he gave? Why are the Government so slow? Why have they not made representations when the Irish Government are doing so and are to get something for their producers?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman will know that one of the certainties in life is that whatever the Irish Republic gets the Northern Irish ask for the same treatment. We have an extremely good record in ensuring that we can deliver that. The hon. Gentleman will know that I have


some experience of resolutions in the European Parliament. If I may say so, there are forms of persuasion that I sometimes find more persuasive.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Who is winding up Ministers about the need to abolish the potato marketing scheme? Could it possibly be McCain or United Biscuits—food processors, and two of Britain's largest crisp producers —companies which just happen to have paid £300,000 to the Conservative party in the past two years? Are they the people who now determine Government policy in these important areas? Are they the people pushing Ministers?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman's conspiracy theory comes a little earlier in the day today, but we always welcome an old friend and I suppose that it is better to hear it sooner rather than later. What he says is transparent nonsense. Our concern about the present scheme is entirely due to the fact that a very large part of the growth market is in processed potato products, and that market has gone more and more to imports. We want to ensure that the investment in processed products goes into the United Kingdom. We do not want to export our jobs, our manufacturing or our acreage. Our whole policy will be governed by the need to ensure that we create a climate for investment in Britain, so that jobs come here, acreage is planted here and added value comes to the United Kingdom. That is how we can do a good job for farmers, processors and consumers, based on what we can produce ourselves.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will my hon. Friend continue to keep in mind the fact that the growers of Lincolnshire, the main potato-growing area of Britain, strongly support the retention of the present potato marketing board and are deeply apprehensive about any proposal to change it to some sort of European scheme under which they feel that their interests will be sacrificed?

Mr. Curry: I believe that the one thing that would sacrifice their interests would be if we agreed a scheme in which everyone in the Community could plant what they wanted and there was free trade within the Community but the United Kingdom alone was pegged back by acreage quotas. That would not be fair to British farmers. At all events, we will take care that the important research and development facilities of the board, and its important marketing activities, can carry on.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that throwing the potato industry to the free market is not a solution to anyone's problems? Will he take into account the special needs of the Scottish seed potato industry? Many of the producers and growers have invested huge sums of money recently to profit from and ensure progress under the existing system; they are telling Scottish Members that if the system is not broken it does not need fixing.

Mr. Curry: The system is not broken, but it has its problems, the main one being that in the main growth area of the market we have been increasingly supplied by imports. We now import 530,000 tonnes of processed products per year, and many of the chips in the great British fish and chips meal are imported.
As for seed potatoes, there is no question of a great contraction of British potato acreage in different circumstances. People are not falling over themselves to get out of growing potatoes, but we want more people to

grow them. We have more varieties than many continental countries. There is a market overseas for Scottish seed potatoes because we can boast greater variety and expertise than many other countries, and we want to exploit those advantages.

Set-aside

Mr. Barry Field: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce the provisions of the permanent set-aside scheme.

Mr. Curry: We are awaiting a Commission proposal on non-rotational set-aside under the arable area payments scheme and expect decisions later in the year. We are also considering how to implement a scheme for the 20-year withdrawal of land from production as part of the agri-environmental programme. We shall be consulting on both schemes shortly.

Mr. Field: Does my hon. Friend recognise the love that the British people have for the patchwork neatness of the British countryside in areas such as Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, and the anxiety of the public and of farmers about the possibility of growing weeds and brambles on good quality agricultural land? Will he push the Commission hard to come up with a scheme that will ensure that some set-aside money goes into planting broadleaf woodland such as the good old English oak?

Mr. Curry: I am as pro-tree as my hon. Friend is. We hope to be able to implement two schemes that will answer his concern. The first is the so-called non-rotational scheme, which can use land set aside for periods longer than a year for things like woodlands, biomass, wildlife habitats and archaeological sites. A long-term, 20-year scheme will be heavily targeted at the creation of habitats. The two schemes will show that we can build many sensible environmental benefits into the set-aside programme.

Mr. Tony Banks: Can the Minister not see the sheer injustice of the situation in which farmers are paid not to grow things while miners are thrown out of work? If farmers can be paid not to grow things, why cannot miners be paid not to mine things?

Mr. Curry: Farmers are not being paid not to grow things: they are being paid for the penalty of a loss of income on land which would otherwise cost every person in the United Kingdom too much money. The whole purpose of what we are trying to do is to build sensible environmental benefits into the programme. I know that the hon. Gentleman is greatly concerned about that aspect of policy. I am sure that he will find when he makes trips into the countryside that when the schemes are operational not only will they result in cheaper cereals, which will benefit his constituents, but the countryside will benefit from being environmentally enhanced.

Environmentally Sensitive Areas

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress is being made towards the establishment of new environmentally sensitive areas.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): I announced the launch of six new environmentally sensitive areas last week.

Lady Olga Maitland: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that news. Does he agree that environmentally sensitive areas are as invaluable to those who live in towns as they are to those who live in the country, because they make the countryside more attractive to visit, visits result in tourism, and tourism results in jobs?

Mr. Gummer: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are a number of environmentally sensitive areas within easy reach of her constituents. ESAs enable us to target money to improve the countryside, to keep that which we especially want to keep and to ensure that farmers are able to look after the countryside in the way that townspeople and suburban dwellers want. ESAs have been recognised by the rest of Europe as perhaps the most enlightened advance in environmentalism since the war.

Mr. Roy Hughes: What constitutes an environmentally sensitive area? Does the category include areas in which there are badger setts? Will the Minister take account of the fact that in some instances dogs have been allowed into badger setts and that recently on the land of a Mr. David Samworth of Melton Mowbray setts were blocked with steel drums? Will he try to ensure that my Badgers Act 1991 is operated in both spirit and letter?

Mr. Gummer: As nearly 12 per cent. of the land area of England will be covered by environmentally sensitive areas, it would be difficult to imagine there not being badger setts in some of those areas. I do not think that in any of the prescriptions for environmentally sensitive areas we have a specific point about badger setts. I should not like the hon. Gentleman to think that he had edged his question into a different one, but I will look into the question of badger setts and environmentally sensitive areas.

Sir Jim Spicer: May I assure my right hon. Friend that the people of West Dorset are delighted to see the establishment of the South Wessex downs environmentally sensitive area? They will greatly appreciate that in future. My right hon. Friend knows that part of the world well. The area finishes at Maiden Newton, but it would be extremely nice if it could extend to my home town of Beaminster. May I make future representations to him about that ?

Mr. Gummer: I should be happy to have representations. When I was Minister of State and piloted the first ESA scheme through Committee, all the criticisms were that it would not be taken up and that farmers and conservationists would not like it. The Labour party said that we should not do it like that, and that it should not be done by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food but by conservationists. It has turned out that farmers have learnt from conservationists, and conservationists have learnt from farmers. The Ministry's involvement has meant that many more of my officials have been trained in conservation as well as in production. The scheme has been most successful and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) whose idea it was.

Farm Incomes (Disadvantaged Areas)

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the average income for mostly sheep farms in severely disadvantaged areas in 1988–89 and in each subsequent year for which figures are available for England and Wales.

Mr. Gummer: Full details of farm income indices are in the Library. Hill sheep farmers' incomes in 1992–93 were higher than in any year since 1984–85.

Mr. Jones: I am sorry that the Minister did not choose to answer the question on the Order Paper. Had he done so, it would have been obvious that although farm incomes have risen during the past 18 months, it has been from a very low base. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has reduced hill livestock compensatory allowance by 26 per cent. Having taken that unprecedented step, will he give the House a firm promise that should the EC-funded payments for ewe premiums go down, he will put up HLCAs to compensate?

Mr. Gummer: I hoped that I had answered the hon. Gentleman's question as well as I could. There is a long series of figures available in the Library which will probably answer it. I hope that he will look at them.
It is true that nominally there has been a significant increase in incomes, but I accept that it has been from a low base. Perhaps the better measure is the fact that every farmer—with so few exceptions as to make "every" the most accurate description—will receive £1.80 extra for every ewe this year than he received last year, which is the year under discussion rather than the year before. That can hardly be considered a cut.
The HLCA is designed to be a compensatory payment. The reason why it fell, although the total subsidy and extra help rose, was that overall incomes have risen by 50 per cent.—admittedly, as I have said in every announcement, from a low base. By law, we must take that into account. In the past, when incomes have fallen we have raised HLCAs. That has been the Government's policy, we are committed to it and I shall stick to it.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he has clearly said that although the income of hill farmers, especially sheep farmers, has risen marginally, it has been from a very low level? Does he accept that in some cases the cuts that he is making in HLCAs can turn a small profit into a loss?
I have seen the projected accounts for two of my sheep farmers in the Peak park. They are likely to make a loss this coming financial year based on the HLCA payments that they will receive, including the increase in extra help that my right hon. Friend mentioned. That will not enable them to make the contribution to the maintenance of the Peak park that so many people consider to be so important, especially the restoration and maintenance of dry stone walls.

Mr. Gummer: I think that my hon. Friend cannot be right in his figures. As the total amounts have gone up and every ewe will attract an additional payment of £1.80 this year, those farmers cannot go into loss because of some cut. Overall, there has been no cut for each farmer. A quarter of the farmers that we are discussing receive


payments specifically designed to maintain dry stone walls because they are in environmentally sensitive areas. I have yet again increased the amount available for that.
My hon. Friend is very careful in his defence of his constituents and I honour him for that. However, there can be no answer other than to say that the Government have increased the support for agriculture in the hills. We are committed to that. A man with 1,000 ewes receives £30.000 in subsidy.

Mr. Tyler: Does the Minister agree that it all depends where we start? Will he confirm that the average level of farm incomes in the upland areas has dropped to almost a quarter of what it was in 1982? An answer that the right hon. Gentleman gave to my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) showed that the severely disadvantaged areas have had a cut of 45 per cent. for higher rate sheep and 60 per cent. for lower rate sheep. Will he confirm that had there not been a devaluation of the pound, he would have had to increase HLCA payments this year?

Mr. Gummer: The facts of the matter are that sheep farmers are getting more this year than they were last year and that we considerably subsidise sheep farming. Sheep farmers' incomes have risen by 50 per cent. in the past two years. Many others on low incomes cannot say the same. I am committed to go on helping the sheep farmers in the hills so that they can look after the hills properly. The hon. Gentleman represents a party which rightly asked for compensation when incomes fell, but is not prepared to act accordingly when incomes rise.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would he fairer to see the £20 million recovered across the whole of agriculture rather than from the farmers who are on the most meagre of incomes? My right hon. Friend has already recognised that we are dealing with a low base year, but he knows that, according to the figures that he has placed in the Library, the proportion in terms of income is in the low thousands of pounds. Will my right hon. Friend outline to the House why the cut has not been spread across agriculture as a whole rather than imposed only on the poorest farmers?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend seems to have missed the fact that a further £70 million or £80 million has gone directly to the hill farmers because the additional payment is made on each ewe. In those circumstances, lowland sheep farmers are facing particularly tough problems. I made sure that payments on cattle in the hills and the high hills were kept up because there had been no reduction in incomes there. When we have to make cuts it is right to ensure that they are made in the areas where there are significant increases. We cannot ignore the fact that every farmer in that situation is receiving more from the taxpayer this year than he did last year.

Dr. Strang: Surely the Minister appreciates that the hundreds of hill farmers who converged on Parliament earlier this week are perfectly well aware of the £1.80 increase in the premium to which he referred. But if income is cut by 50 per cent., as happened to them, an increase of 100 per cent. on that figure is needed to return to the original level. When will the Minister understand that the industry is so disturbed about this because he seems to be saying that he is prepared to cut their incomes

in order to prevent them from reaching a level which gives hill farmers a reasonable return for their labour and increases investment in the hill areas?

Mr. Gummer: But £470 million a year of taxpayers' money goes into the hill areas. We are increasing that amount this year at a time when Government expenditure is being severely curtailed. At a time when many have had no increase in income at all and some have seen their incomes fall, we are significantly increasing the incomes of those people. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is talking tosh.

Food and Drink

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on initiatives to stimulate food exports.

Mr. Streeter: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action his Department is taking to reduce the balance of trade deficit in food and drink.

Mr. Gummer: I have introduced the group marketing grant and announced an independent review into how best Food From Britain can serve industry's future needs. We are holding seminars with about 150 companies to encourage exports. The Prime Minister's two industry seminars have resulted in important initiatives. David Naish—in a personal capacity—is co-ordinating the follow-up action to these.

Mr. Martin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Having a commercial port in Portsmouth, we understand the importance of exports to our economy. Will my right hon. Friend continue to do all that he can to encourage food manufacturers and producers in the competitive markets which now exist overseas?

Mr. Gummer: We are doing exactly that, and I am happy to say that exports are rising faster than imports. That is a good start, but there is a long way to go and we need to work at every possible outlet.

Mr. Streeter: While recognising the important contribution made by Scotch whisky to our balance of trade figures, does my right hon. Friend agree that the punitive levels of duty on United Kingdom wine and whisky make those home-produced goods far more expensive in Britain than imported goods? Is that not why many people buy French, Spanish and Italian wine and whisky from abroad? Is it not time to review those levels of duty, end that discrimination against home producers and put British interests first?

Mr. Gummer: That matter is for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who must weigh a number of factors together. There is no doubt that in the single market the pressures on various excise duties become very noticeable.

Mr. Salmond: Is the Minister aware of the lively debate about the possible impact of his proposed abolition of the potato marketing scheme on the level of potato exports? Will he confirm that he intends to abolish the scheme because he wants to do so, or does he claim that he has no alternative because of the incoming EC regime? Does the Minister know that many people are praying for a change of heart on his part?

Mr. Gummer: I say to the hon. Gentleman absolutely frankly that there is a real problem with the situation of the present potato marketing board. We are currently restricting the volume of potatoes that we grow in this country, and there is increasing importation of frozen chips and the like. The growing market sector is processed potato. If we do not take the matter seriously now, our industry will find processors moving abroad and obtaining their potatoes abroad. Anyone who ignores that is ignoring the economic facts and ought to be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Morley: I assure the Minister that we support a strong export trade in food products. However, when it comes to meat exports we would rather see adequate local slaughter facilities and exports of meat rather than of live animals. Is the Minister aware of the concern felt about his resumption of live animal exports to Spain, and about the impact of the single market on live animal exports? Will the Minister join me in condemning the fact that cattle were left for more than 20 hours in a lorry at Fishguard recently because there was no room at the lairage there? Does he agree that the best way to eliminate such problems is to press for an eight-hour limit on animal transport and for tighter regulations?

Mr. Gummer: I am totally committed to better, Europewide regulations on animal transport. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have been fighting for that. I have insisted on retaining national measures in those areas not covered by the Community, even after the opening of the single market. The hon. Gentleman knows that I always condemn any ill treatment of animals, and I support him in that. However, we must have a Europewide arrangement. Otherwise, I will have no powers, for example, to stop the export of live animals to Spanish slaughterhouses that receive Community approval. I could not legally do that. We need a Europewide regulation.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that of the 46 per cent. of Scotland's potato crop that is grown in my constituency, much of it is exported? Is he aware that farmers in my constituency are saying that if we scrap the potato marketing board under the present scheme the probability is that, because of the risks involved, farmers will be forced into cereals? Does my right hon. Friend consider that a stimulant or an alternative to exports?

Mr. Gummer: Is it not fundamentally unlikely that whereas every other country has a healthy potato producing industry, ours is the only one that could protect its potato industry only by insisting that we impose restrictions that no other country has? Would my hon. Friend allow me to announce to the House that the Community had decided to allow everyone in Europe to produce as many potatoes as they liked, but that Britain would be restricted to a quota? My goodness!—my hon. Friend would stop talking about Maastricht and give me hell on that.

Promotion

Mr. Eastham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what efforts he has made in the last year to promote British agriculture.

Mr. Curry: Agriculture Ministers take every opportunity to promote British agriculture. We have met,

individually, representatives of more than 80 food companies, for example, to explore ways of meeting the challenges of the single market.

Mr. Eastham: When the Minister last met officials of the Meat and Livestock Commission, was adequate time spent discussing meat exports to Europe and the general feeling that it is being run on a shoe string? With greater effort, far more meat could be exported to Europe, with Britain enjoying a greater share of exports.

Mr. Curry: As a matter of fact, I meet the MLC regularly and that is what we discuss. The MLC has its own promotional activities. Indeed, I accompanied it to France a little while ago specifically to promote British meat. Our beef and lamb exports are doing very well; we export one third of all the lamb that we produce and there is also a healthy market for our pork. The MLC is showing the way to other organisations, but what will sell the meat is quality, and we have the quality.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: In his attempts to promote British agriculture, will my hon. Friend address with vigour the problems created by poultry meat inspection costs? Is he aware that independent assessments indicate that United Kingdom producers, especially those in my part of the world where the full costs of poultry meat inspection are applied, are some 5p per bird out compared with continental producers? The consequence of that is that we are being denied export opportunities and we are facing import threats as is evinced by Cargill's decision to locate its plant in France instead of in England.

Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend raises a serious point. We are conscious of the costs of inspection to the industry. Of course that was partly necessitated by the salmonella outbreak in the United Kingdom after which confidence in eggs and poultry meat reached a low level and we have had to build up that confidence. However, there has been a change in economic circumstances because of the devaluation of the pound and our chickens have become relatively more competitive. We will continue to address the problems of inspection to ensure that it is carried out as competitively as possible, always being aware of the need to retain the industry in the United Kingdom, not least Sun Valley, which is an outstanding company.

Set-aside

Mr. Denham: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area of agricultural land in Hampshire is currently subject to set-aside under the common agricultural policy; and what is the annual cost.

Mr. Curry: Some 2,750 hectares of land are currently set aside under the existing five-year scheme at an annual cost of around £500,000. Information on the land set aside under the new arable area payments scheme will not be available until growers have to declare the area later this year.

Mr. Denham: Are the people of Hampshire getting value for money for that enormous expenditure? Is not set-aside an inefficient and expensive means of reducing agricultural production and an ineffective way of protecting the environment? Would it not be better to use that money, for example, to remove the threat to the Thames Valley environmentally sensitive area and to


extend it and, more widely, to reward farmers for farming in a less intensive and more environmentally sensitive manner throughout the county of Hampshire?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman cannot escape the fact that cereal production was too high and had to be brought down quickly. The introduction of quotas and set-aside does that. We have never concealed the fact that we would have preferred to do it by price. The advantage of set-aside is that, first, it acts quickly and, secondly, one can build in environmental advantages. My right hon. Friend will make an announcement about the environmentally sensitive areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but at a time when people are crying out for environmentally sensitive areas it must be sheer common sense to make sure that people take advantage of those areas and we get the best value for money. My right hon. Friend has that very much in mind.

Mr. Hague: Does my hon. Friend agree that farmers in Hampshire and elsewhere will much more readily accept the idea of set-aside if they can be confident that it will be implemented properly throughout the European Community? Will he do his utmost to ensure that other national Governments implement their regulations with a zeal equal to that always shown by his Department?

Mr. Curry: I admire my hon. Friend's dexterity in moving from Hampshire to North Yorkshire so rapidly. That does wonders for the road network. Of course we shall pay particular attention to the problems that he highlights. I am just as concerned as he is, as my constituency is next to his.

Dr. Strang: Does the Minister acknowledge that the more land that is set aside, the more jobs will be lost? Is it not a matter of concern that the level of set-aside in Britain is above the EC average because of our better farming structure? Is it not a disgrace that under the current set-aside scheme, farmers are compensated for not producing, but the farm workers who lose their jobs in Hampshire and elsewhere as a consequence of the scheme do not receive a penny?

Mr. Curry: It is a matter of record that the United Kingdom has larger average farm sizes, so that the de minimis rule applies relatively less to the United Kingdom than elsewhere. But other countries are setting aside a far greater amount of land. The problem we faced was simple. There was over-production, people were paying too much for a product that was in surplus and the market was not allowed to operate. By introducing set-aside and compensatory payments, we have brought down the price of cereals, which is a major step in the reform of the CAP.

Beef Regime

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the introduction of the new beef regime under the reformed CAP.

Mr. Curry: Arrangements are now well in hand for the operation of the beef special premium scheme to begin on-farm during March.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that there is uncertainty among some

farmers about the marketing of their stock during the transitional period, which I believe will be April and May? Will he comment on that?

Mr. Curry: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his comprehension of a very complex scheme. We have arranged for producers to claim premium in respect of April and May at the same time as they apply for their cattle identification documents under the new scheme. The forms are already available at regional offices and will remain available until the end of March.

Ms. Walley: Why do we have stockpiles of beef which elderly people in my constituency cannot claim and who fear that that beef is being thrown away? Why can we not have proper criteria to enable people to claim from the beef mountains?

Mr. Curry: The hon. Lady will know that there is a scheme for the distribution of beef and butter. It is not a very good scheme and it is not designed to tackle surpluses. Pensioners in the hon. Lady's constituency, like pensioners in mine, will be better served by the regime being reformed in such a way that beef is made more accessible to them; and perhaps we could have rather less panic from Labour Members about how bad beef is to eat, because it is not. The fundamental point of the reform is that we reduce intervention. We are encouraging the specialist producer, and I hope that Labour Members will do their bit by telling people that we produce very good beef and that they should eat more of it.

Scotch Whisky

Dame Jill Knight: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the export earnings of Scotch whisky from the European Community in the current year and each of the previous five years; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Curry: With permission, Madam Speaker, I will publish the information in the Official Report. The value for the first 11 months of last year was £720 million, which was more than for the whole of the preceding year.

The following is the information:

The value of Scotch whisky exports to other EC countries to the end of November 1992 and for each of the previous five calendar years are:

£ million


1987
409.52


1988
462.33


1989
536.14


1990
622.01


1991
717.76


11992
720.14


1 January to November.

Dame Jill Knight: Does my hon. Friend agree that negotiations on level playing fields and the harmonisation of duties are more likely to succeed if in Britain we treat our products in the same way as products are treated elsewhere on the continent? Is he aware that British Scotch pays nearly three times more in tax than whisky produced in Italy? Does he consider that to be fair? Will he discuss the matter with the Chancellor?

Mr. Curry: As my hon. Friend knows, the Chancellor is in purdah at present but I have no doubt that we shall be able to get a message to him to that effect.

Mrs. Ewing: Is the Minister aware that at a time when hon. Members in all parts of the House are arguing strongly for a level playing field, United Distilleries has announced the closure of five distilleries—four malt and one grain—with the loss in Scotland of 831 jobs? Will he consider the matter carefully, not only in connection with the whisky industry but in terms of the knock-on effects for those who grow grain for the distilleries?

Mr. Curry: The Scotch whisky industry is the fifth biggest United Kingdom exporter, so its future matters to all who are concerned about the future of our economy. My Department will take all steps possible to safeguard and promote that future.

Mr. Steen: Will the Minister congratulate the English Vineyard Association for forming a consortium to set up a stall on the docks—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is, as usual, most ingenious, but I remind him that the question relates to Scotch whisky.

Mr. Steen: Exactly, Madam Speaker, and as I was saying—

Madam Speaker: Order. A good try. Does the hon. Member wish to rephrase his question?

Mr. Steen: The English Vineyard Association together with the Scotch whisky industry plans to set up a stall on the docks of Calais to sell British alcohol—Scotch whisky and English wine—to English passengers travelling back from France to England so that they can save pounds in duty by buying English products at the French docks. Does he agree that that is quite outrageous?

Mr. Curry: I think we must congratulate both industries for recognising with such alacrity the laws of the marketplace and allowing consumers to benefit from them.

GATT

Ms. Lynne: To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been achieved in the current GATT negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gummer: The compromise that the European Community and the United States reached on agriculture last November provides a good basis for multilateral agreement. Negotiations are continuing in Geneva.

Ms. Lynne: In view of the announcement of import tariffs on steel made by the United States of America last night can the Minister say what effect it will have on the agricultural agreement or on any agreement we might reach on the textile industry, which I consider to be equally important?

Mr. Gummer: The United States should consider carefully its use of this instrument. There is no doubt that the United States has fought its own corner extremely hard and I deprecate some people in this country who suggest that the European Community should not stand up to them.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Burns: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is making official visits to India, Saudi Arabia and Oman. I am pleased to advise the House that, following discussions with the Sultan of Oman, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that Oman is to purchase the Challenger 2 as its new main battle tank, together with its armoured repair and recovery vehicles. I am sure the whole House will want to join me in congratulating Vickers Defence Systems on its well-deserved success in the first export order for Challenger 2.

Mr. Burns: Notwithstanding that extremely good news, on a slightly different subject, has my right hon. Friend had time today to see the deeply disturbing allegations of fraud in Hackney, coming on top of the discovery of possibly record local government fraud in the Labour London borough of Lambeth? Will he assure the House of the Government's determination to root out the systematic cheating and defrauding of charge payers?

Mr. Newton: Yes. I can certainly assure my hon. Friend of our determination in that respect and I have no doubt that we shall be joined in it by the Opposition Front Bench. I have also, I may say, been doing some research on what the commentators have been saying and I came across this one which said:
in many areas … Labour local government is lacklustre and incompetent. In a few it is simply corrupt and nepotistic.
This is nothing new. Ineffectual or rotten Labour councils … have been a feature of British political life for as long as anyone can remember".
That was in Tribune.

Mrs. Beckett: rose—

Mr. Cryer: If that was in Tribune what about New Statesman?

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Beckett: Is the Lord President aware that the December trade deficit of more than £1.5 billion is the worst for two and a half years and that whatever gloss he may put on it, the country is still in deep recession and deep trouble with no sign that the Government are prepared to do anything about it?

Mr. Newton: What I am aware of is that the trade figures recently have shown that for the first time for a very long time our share of world trade in manufactures has stabilised and that the figures—[Interruption.] that is, after decades of decline. The figures today, which inevitably reflect to some extent the consequence on import prices of the depreciation of the pound, also show that export volumes were at record levels for the three months to December; they were up 5.5 per cent. on the year before in the face of a slowdown in world trade, and there are particularly encouraging signs of a continuing increase in car and other manufactured exports.

Mrs. Beckett: I suppose that that was the gloss. The reality is that, despite a huge devaluation, exports this month are down, while imports continue to rise. That is unprecedented during a recession.
Is it not the case that we now have a payments deficit and a budget deficit, and that, for the past three years, 400 people have lost their jobs every day in London alone? Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that the people of Britain are worried sick about this, and that the only people who are not are the Government?

Mr. Newton: The reality is that inflation is at its lowest for six years, that interest rates are at their lowest for 15 years, that productivity is at an all-time high and that all surveys show an increase in business confidence. As I said on Tuesday, it is time that the Opposition stopped trying to talk that confidence down again.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Amess: Crime in Basildon has fallen over the past year. Does my right hon. Friend think it right for a mass murderer to be interviewed on television about his crimes, on the grounds that it is of educational value and in the public interest, when common sense tells us that it might well put ideas into the mind of a disturbed person? Does my right hon. Friend think that right? The majority of my constituents in Basildon do not.

Mr. Newton: I think that I can safely say that the same is likely to go for the majority of my constituents in Braintree. I can do no better than reply to my hon. Friend by referring to what my vigorous right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said on the radio this morning. He said:
it is in my opinion contrary to public interest for somebody who is a mass murderer of his kind"—
of Nilsen's kind, that is—[Laughter.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Very amusing, but I think that the Leader of the House wants to get on.

Mr. Newton: The Leader of the House wants to complete the quotation, Madam Speaker.
My right hon. and learned Friend said that it was wrong for
a mass murderer of his kind to be allowed publicly to relate his offences in this way—it's bad taste, bad judgment and it's totally insensitive to the feelings of the victims of people he killed".

Mr. Ashdown: If things are so wonderful, as the Leader of the House claims, will he tell us whether he can recall a time when any Government have presided over unemployment of 3 million, while borrowing £1 billion a week and running up a trade deficit that is heading towards £20 billion a year? Is not that, by any standards, the mark of an economic policy that is floundering and a Government who have failed?

Mr. Newton: I am somewhat surprised to find the right hon. Gentleman joining Labour Front Benchers in their exercise of talking the economy down again. I repeat that the conditions for recovery are in place, and confidence is growing. I would expect to have the right hon. Gentleman's support in ensuring that that continues.

Mr. Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend welcome the reduction in interest rates that was announced this week? It has saved British industry £1 billion. Is it not particularly helpful for our manufacturing industry, and to all those with mortgages and overdrafts? Is not some good news coming out of all the gloom? [Interruption.]

Mr. Newton: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. All this hilarity is a waste of valuable question time.

Mr. Newton: The reduction in interest rates is indeed extremely good news. My hon. Friend might have extended the point that he made in his question by saying that, with the interest reductions that have taken place since 1990, we have seen £11 billion cut off the costs of British industry, and £160 off an average mortgage payment.

Mr. Martlew: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Martlew: Will the Leader of the House inform the Prime Minister, when he returns, that in the western part of the United Kingdom there is a great deal of concern about the fact that the Government are failing to give British Rail the necessary resources to upgrade the west coast main line? Does he agree that, without that investment, the economies of the west midlands, north Wales, the north-west of England, Cumbria, Scotland and Northern Ireland will be grossly disadvantaged? Does the Leader of the House agree also that it would be nonsensical for the Prime Minister to underestimate the political influence of areas that account for one third of Members of Parliament?

Mr. Newton: Should I be able to find the necessary extensive opportunity, in the wake of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall, of course, report his views to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. I have no doubt, however, that my right hon. Friend will disagree with the hon. Gentleman just as much as I do, against the background of the fact that British Rail's external financing limit next year is to be nearly £1.5 billion.

Mr. Rathbone: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Rathbone: May I ask my right hon. Friend to request the Prime Minister to review the policies of the British Government and of the European Community towards Israel in the light of the horrible deportations that have taken place there and of the upholding of those deportations by the Israeli supreme court yesterday, and thus bring pressure on the Israeli Government to accept as swiftly as possible United Nations Security Council resolution 799?

Mr. Newton: It is obvious from the response to my hon. Friend's question that his concern is widely shared in the House. He will know that the British Government continue to urge the Israelis to comply with United


Nations Security Council resolution 799. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary sent a personal message to the Israeli Foreign Minister last week, and they will meet in Brussels on 1 February, when, as my right hon. Friend has already told the House, he will emphasise the need for the Israeli Government to take urgent steps to solve the problem of the deportees.

Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Gunnell: Will the Leader of the House give his estimate of the total number of jobs, in both the public and the private sectors, that are at risk through rail privatisation? Does he agree with Lord Prior's assessment that there will be 12,000 potential job losses in the areas of rolling stock and signalling? While I welcome the news for Leeds about the Challenger tank, may I ask the Leader of the House whether he agrees that more Yorkshire jobs will be lost in railway engineering factories in Hunslet, York, Wakefield and Doncaster as a result of these threats, unless there is action within weeks, rather than months or years?

Mr. Newton: I do not agree. On the contrary, my right hon. Friend's proposals for rail privatisation and the development of competition are the best means of ensuring

an effective and efficient railway system and of guaranteeing jobs for many people in the long term. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for acknowledging that his area, Leeds, and Newcastle, because of the Vickers presence there, are among those that will benefit from the work that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has done on his visit abroad.

Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 28 January.

Mr. Newton: I have been asked to reply.
I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Sir Michael Neubert: Will my right hon. Friend spare some sympathy today for our Community partners, the Irish, whose traditional luck seems temporarily to have deserted them? Whereas Irish overnight interest rates have gone up to 100 per cent., we in liberated Britain have the lowest rates for 15 years, to the great benefit of business, industry and millions of home owners.

Mr. Newton: I very much share the pleasure that my hon. Friend has expressed in what we have been able to do over interest rates. It shows that we are now moving in the sort of direction that both British industry and the whole of the British people want to see in achieving economic recovery.

Business of the House

Mr. Nicholas Brown: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): Yes, Madam. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 1 FEBRUARY—Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 10th day.
TUESDAY 2 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Railways Bill.
Motions on Customs and Excise orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motions on VAT orders. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 3 FEBRUARY—Motions on the English revenue support grant reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (Contracted out Prisons) (No. 2) Order.
THURSDAY 4 FEBRUARY—Progress in Committee on the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, 11th day.
FRIDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Motions on the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Board) Order.
Motion on the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Board) Order.
The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name opposed private business for consideration at seven o'clock.
The House will also wish to know that European Standing Committees will meet on Wednesday 3 Februaryat 10.30 am to consider European Community documents as follows:
Standing Committee A—Document No. 5761/92 relating to the incineration of hazardous waste.
Standing Committee B—Document No. 9752/91 relating to the investment and management of pension funds.

[Tuesday 2 February:

Customs and Excise Orders:

1. Customs and Excise Duties (Personal Reliefs for Goods Permanently Imported) Order 1992;
2. Customs Duty (Personal Reliefs) (Amendment) Order 1992.

Value Added Tax Orders:

1. Value Added Tax (Flat-rate Scheme for Farmers) (Designated Activities) Order 1992;
2. Value Added Tax (Flat-rate Scheme for Farmers) (Percentage Addition) Order 1992;
3. Value Added Tax (Input Tax) Order 1992;
4. Value Added Tax (International Services and Transport) Order 1992.

Wednesday 3 February:

English Revenue Support Grant Reports:

1. Local Government Finance Report (England) 1993–94 (HC 422);
2. Special Grant Report (England) (No. 5) (HC 423);

3. Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Capital Amounts) Report (England) 1993–94 (HC 424).

European Standing Committee A

Relevant European Community Document

5761/92 Incineration of Hazardous Waste

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee HC 79-i (1992–93), HC 79-xvi (1992–93).

European Standing Committee B

Relevant European Community Document

9752/91 Freedom of management and investment of pension funds

Relevant Reports of the European Legislation Committee HC 24-viii (1991–92), HC 24-xv (1991–92), HC 79-i ( 1992–93).

Monday 8 February:

Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports:

1. Local Government Finance Report (Wales) 1993–94 (HC 412);
2. Limitation of Council Tax and Precepts (Relevant Notional Amounts) Report (Wales) 1993–94 (HC 413).]

Mr. Brown: In spite of Maastricht and the Government's understandable reluctance to discuss economic affairs on the Floor of the House, will the Leader of the House confirm that time will be found in the near future for the social security uprating orders, the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on the coal industry, which is due tomorrow, and a day's debate on the detailed public expenditure plans of Government Departments?
Will he find time for the House to discuss early-day motion 941 which deals with the disconnection of domestic water services, or find time for the House to discuss hill livestock farming support?
[That this House is appalled that the number of disconnections of water supplies to inhabited domestic premises has trebled, from 7,273 to 21,586, since 1990–91; notes that the health and safety regulations in the Factories Act 1901 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 ignore the fact that for millions of people the domestic space is also their area of work, that there is no provision for emergency access to water where disconnection has taken place and that this could lead to extreme danger to health in the event of an accident or fire in the home, that where disconnection has taken place this is likely to affect access to heating and will furthermore expose people to danger due to heating systems running dry, and that the installation of prepayment meters does not solve these problems and can exacerbate them in the case of the frail and elderly; and calls on the Government to extend the Health and Safety Regulations to cover all inhabited domestic premises and to instruct the water companies to recover outstanding payments through the courts and not by disconnection.]
May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the widespread anxieties of the shipbuilding and ship repair communities of Devonport, Rosyth and Tyneside, and remind him that we would normally have had the annual debate on the defence estimates by now? May I remind him that we are due a one-day debate on the Royal Navy in the near future?
If the Leader of the House is finding trouble in fitting all this in, perhaps he will consider withdrawing the Railways Bill from next week's business, particularly in


light of recent comments, so that it can be given more mature consideration before it comes to the Floor of the House?

Mr. Newton: In answer to the last question, perhaps I could, but I do not intend to.
As regards the rest of the questions, I note the point made about the Royal Navy. We have recently had a debate embracing the Royal Air Force but also focusing on events in the middle east.
I cannot undertake to arrange the debate that I think the hon. Gentleman was seeking in respect of early-day motion 941, or add to what I said to his hon. Friend last week on the question of further debating public expenditure. As regards hill livestock compensatory allowances, I would expect to provide time for the debate which many people wish to see, although I acknowledge that it is not in next week's business.
As for the coal industry, I will not attempt to add to what has been said on earlier occasions. There is a clear commitment to a debate in the wake of the White Paper that my right hon. Friend expects to publish when he has had a chance to consider all the various reports that he has had from the House and from outside consultants, and to consider future policy.
Lastly, on the hon. Gentleman's first point, about social security uprating orders, I will indeed be looking for a reasonably early debate, and perhaps the precise timing is best left for discussion through the usual channels.

Mr. Tony Marlow: I wonder whether it would be helpful to the House, and particularly the Government, if my right hon. Friend could tell us whether he intends to suspend the 10 o'clock rule on Monday and Thursday of next week, so that we may avoid a repetition of the sad events of last night, when convoys of ministerial cars converged on the Palace and there was no vote; when my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was beached in the Smoking Room intending to vote, but there was no vote; and when my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) missed his Adjournment debate because there was no vote. Why was there no vote last night? Did the Government feel that they might have lost it?

Mr. Newton: I think that neither you, Madam Speaker, nor the House, certainly not the usual channels, would expect me to engage in the kind of speculation which my hon. Friend invites about the handling of Government business.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Having regard to the very serious unilateral action on steel imports that the Americans have recently taken, will the Leader of the House make time available for at least a statement, if not a debate, on the general agreement on tariffs and trade negotiations and the whole question of international trade?
Secondly, I am very pleased to hear that he is making arrangements for the debate on HLCAs, after the very successful farming lobby of this place earlier this week. Will he give us a guarantee that the debate will be on the Floor of the House and not in a Standing Committee?

Mr. Newton: Yes. I expect a debate on the Floor of the House.
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking that he sought about a debate on GATT and trade matters generally, although of course I will consider the point that he has raised. He may like to know, if he is not already aware of it, that both Sir Leon Brittan, on behalf of the whole European Community, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade have made clear in writing to the United States Secretary for Commerce our view that the American proposals for steel tariffs are unjustified and disproportionate.

Mr. Peter Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week to debate early-day motions 1228–1232, which appear under my name on the Order Paper?
[That this House takes note of the Premium Savings Bonds (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 3116), dated 9th December 1992.]
Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have used this rather Byzantine procedural device to draw attention to a monstrous proposal by the Post Office to increase certain minimum payments, so that, to give one example, grandparents who wish to give premium bonds to their grandchildren must pay a minimum of £100 rather than £10? If my right hon. Friend cannot find time for a whole day's debate on this subject next week, will he bring his common sense to bear, knock a few heads together and try to stop this very unpopular move?

Mr. Newton: That is the kind of invitation to which any member of a collectively organised administration would be unwise to say yes, but I will certainly bring my hon. Friend's comments to the attention of the appropriate colleagues. I believe that he will find that those colleagues are Treasury Ministers, who are due here to answer questions on Thursday next.

Mr. David Jamieson: The Leader of the House may be aware that, today, a copy of "Job Opportunities" is circulating among employees of the Ministry of Defence which appears to contradict the statement made in the House on 12 January by both the Secretary of State for Defence and the Prime Minister that a decision had not been made about the nuclear refits contract. This document suggests either incompetence of the highest level by the MOD or that the House has been misled. Will the Leader of the House make time available at the earliest opportunity for a statement by the Secretary of State for Defence on this matter of great importance to my constituency, and to the whole nation?

Mr. Newton: I need hardly say that my right hon. and learned Friend will of course make a statement as soon as he is in a position to do so. But it is quite wrong—I give the hon. Gentleman this clear assurance—to interpret the document to which he has referred in the way he has. I understand that that has now been made clear by the Defence Research Agency. I will go beyond that and make it absolutely clear that no decision has yet been taken on the future of the royal dockyards.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, to many people inside and outside the House, it is not only incomprehensible but scandalous that we can once again devote two days to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill while ignoring the grave crisis in the Balkans, which gets worse each


week? May I once again urge my right hon. Friend to find time next week for a debate, on the Adjournment of the House if he likes, on that crisis?

Mr. Newton: As my hon. Friend knows, I am well aware of the concern that he has expressed in that regard, even though I have not been able to respond to it in my statement. I take note of his request, but I cannot make any definite commitment.

Mr. Stephen Byers: I wonder whether the Leader of the House will give further consideration to the suggestion from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) for a day's debate on the Royal Navy? The right hon. Gentleman must be aware of the great concern in the communities of Plymouth, Rosyth and Barrow and on Tyneside about future defence orders, but he also needs to be aware that more than 300 constituencies contain companies that place orders at Swan Hunter on Tyneside in my Wallsend constituency.
We need assurances that the Ministry of Defence intends to proceed with its order for a new helicopter carrier, which is why we need a debate to reassure the people of Tyneside and elsewhere in the country that the defence procurement programme will continue as planned.

Mr. Newton: I am, of course, well aware of the widespread interest—to put it no more strongly—in the matters currently under consideration by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, to which reference has already been made, but I cannot add to what I said in reply to an earlier question. However, in view of the fact that Vickers has a strong presence in Leeds and in the north-east in Newcastle—I hope that the hon. Gentleman's constituents may also benefit to some extent from the work that my right hon. and learned Friend has done in connection with the Challenger order.

Mr. Peter Luff: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be real interest in next week's debate on the revenue support grant settlement? A number of important issues will need to be raised in that debate, but Conservative Members are greatly concerned about local government, specifically the growing evidence of corruption and inefficiency and the attempts by Labour members of councils to undermine the work of their officers. In my constituency of Worcester, they sacked the chief executive in order to give more power to the elected members. Can we therefore find time for a debate specifically on other aspects of local government?

Mr. Newton: I do not think that it would require exceptional ingenuity for my hon. Friend—subject, of course, to your guidance, Madam Speaker—to raise those matters in a debate on the revenue support orders.

Mr. Barry Jones: Is there any chance that the Leader of the House could persuade the Secretary of State for Wales to make a statement next week on the future shape of local government in Wales? Does he know that we have been waiting for many months to hear the Secretary of State's views? Some of us are beginning to think that, when they are announced, they will merely be the pretext for parliamentary boundaries to be changed.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman need only contain his impatience until Monday, when the Secretary of State for Wales will be here to answer questions. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to put that matter to him.

Mr. John Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend announced that the 10th and 11th days of debate on the ratification of the wholly irrelevant treaty on European union are to take place next week. May I remind him that, in contrast, he and the Government did not find a single day throughout the whole of last year to debate the three services—the Navy, Army and Air Force—or the statement on the defence estimates, and that last week's debate on the Royal Air Force was hijacked by foreign affairs? In view of the fact that our armed forces are operational in Bosnia, Croatia, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, is it not high time that we had a debate on the armed forces at the earliest possible date?

Mr. Newton: I do not quite share my hon. Friend's apparent feeling that last week's debate on Kuwait and other issues in the Gulf was hijacked. It seemed an important aspect of the work that the Royal Air Force is doing, and a proper opportunity to debate it. I have already said, in response to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown), that I shall consider the possibility of further debates, to which he and my hon. Friend referred, but I am not in a position to promise one next week.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the Leader of the House give time at an early opportunity, preferably next week, for a debate on the operation of the Broadcasting Act 1990? The right hon. Gentleman will recall that that was allegedly a wonderful Government measure, but we have recently seen its consequences, with falling audiences for ITV and, because of the money paid for the franchises, cheap programmes now being put on the screen, of which one example is a squalid interview with mass murderer Dennis Nilsen. The Government could arrange a debate so that the responsibility for the deterioration could be placed firmly where it belongs in their own hands.

Mr. Newton: This subject came up when I was answering questions on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister a quarter of an hour or so ago. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is urgently considering what can be done about some of those matters. The Home Secretary is examining the question of the broadcast which the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I should add that I simply do not accept the connection which the hon. Gentleman makes between those events and the Government's framework in which broadcasting now takes place.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will there be an opportunity during next week's debate on the revenue support grant to investigate the way in which large swathes of local government operate—especially the way in which direct labour organisations are preserved at all costs, to appease union paymasters and buddies? Conservative Members would be interested to know whether it is just coincidence that the very Labour-controlled authorities that have whinged for so long about being underfunded, and said that the Government kept them short of money,


turn out to be the authorities which have all along been lining the pockets of their sleazeball friends in the union-backed direct labour organisations.

Mr. Newton: The fundamental thrust of my hon. Friend's question is whether he may advert to all that when we discuss the revenue support grant orders—and the answer to that must be yes.

Ms. Rachel Squire: The Leader of the House has already said that no decision has been taken on the future of Rosyth and Devonport royal dockyards. However, he must be aware of the uncertainty and the fierce competition between the two dockyards. Will he ask the Secretary of State for Defence to make an announcement next week and to comment on early-day motions 1236, 1237 and 1238?
[That this House notes that in a letter from the Prime Minister to the honourable Member for Dunfermline East, dated 6th January 1993, on the handling of the nuclear refit competition, the Prime Minister made no mention of Rosyth's second bid but specifically compared RD57 with Devonport Management Ltd's greatly cheaper docks modernisation scheme, even though senior Ministry of Defence officials had assured Rosyth that Scheme IV would be accepted and fully evaluated in the competition after it was formally submitted on 10th December 1992; is concerned about leaks from recommendations issued by the Secretary of State for Defence's office to senior cabinet colleagues in early January that Rosyth's Scheme IV bid had been dismissed as insubstantial and insufficiently developed, and criticised because Rosyth were unable to file a firm, fixed price early enough; notes that Babcock Thorn state they were not told of such reservations or given the opportunity to submit additional information; is alarmed that similar leaks claim the Ministry of Defence has recommended Rosyth lose all nuclear refitting contracts in favour of Devonport and take instead a five-year package of guaranteed surface ship refitting that will secure only around 1,500 of the dockyard's 4,200 jobs and a deeply insecure future, whilst Devonport will be guaranteed 30 years of nuclear refitting work: and requests an early explanation from the Secretary of State for Defence]
Will the Leader of the House urge his right hon. and learned Friend to ensure a level playing field for Rosyth royal dockyard?

Mr. Newton: I know from conversations with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence that he is very much aware of the uncertainty felt in both places, and of course he is concerned to remove it as soon as he properly can. Beyond that, I shall simply draw his attention to the hon. Lady's request.

Mr. Richard Tracey: In advance of next Wednesday's debate on the revenue support grant, will my right hon. Friend be able to find time for our right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement on the investigations that have taken place so far into the disgraceful affairs in Lambeth, Hackney, and Monklands, East?

Mr. Newton: I cannot promise an early statement, but my hon. Friend was probably present in the House yesterday when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was answering questions, and made some comment on those matters.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Could we have a statement, if not a debate, on the coal industry next week so that the President of the Board of Trade can be challenged on a statement that he has recently made three times on television that the coal industry is subsidised by as much as £1 billion a year? The coal industry has not received a subsidy from the Government since 1988.
The President of the Board of Trade is getting mixed up about the fact that power station contracts were made between the electricity companies and British Coal three years ago, and since then the world price of coal has fallen. The President of the Board of Trade says that that represents a subsidy. He is like someone who took out a mortgage in 1988 and then, with hindsight, wishes that he had not, because the price of the house has fallen. It is time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped telling those subsidy stories on television, because there is no truth in them.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman appears to be attempting to stage, in the form of questions to me, the debate that will no doubt in due course take place when my right hon. Friend has brought out the White Paper that he has promised.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my right hon. Friend accept that rather too much time is being devoted to the European Communities (Amendment) Bill, when other vital issues such as trade and industry, which make a direct contribution to our economy and with which we are experiencing severe problems, need debating? There are also matters relating to broadcasting—the interview with the mass murderer is an instance of that—and, as my right hon. Friend knows, the transmission into this country of pornographic material by "Red Hot Dutch. That, too, demands Government action. There are also other matters relating to the rural economy, to hill livestock compensatory—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is covering the entire horizon. I should be grateful if he would put a question to the Leader of the House.

Mr. Winterton: I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend would find time to debate these matters, which are of such critical importance to the country—now.

Mr. Newton: I have always been conscious that my hon. Friend has what might be described as wide-ranging interests. He has ranged so widely, as you have said, Madam Speaker, that I could hardly grant his requests in a month, let alone a week.
As it happens, I do not really agree with what he said, not so much about the importance of these other issues as about the Maastricht Bill. I happen to believe that the passage of the European Communities (Amendment) Bill is extremely important to the successful future of trade and industry in this country.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that yesterday in my constituency, in Frankland prison, a prison officer was attacked physically and sexually while escorting a convicted rapist in the line of duty? Will he ask the Home Secretary to hold an inquiry into the incident—

Madam Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should be putting questions to the Leader of the House about the business for next week, not asking him to act as a post office to pass on messages to other Ministers.

Mr. Steinberg: Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the staffing in prisons, and on the privatisation of prisons, which will make matters even worse?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has now come well within the rules of order, Madam Speaker, because, as I said in my statement, there will be a debate on the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (Contracted Out Prisons) (No. 2) Order towards the end of Wednesday evening on 3 February. Beyond that, I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised his point, and I will bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Tim Devlin: May I briefly thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) for his unexpected support over the loss of my Adjournment debate last night?
Would it be possible to have a statement or a debate on the late-night opening of betting shops, an order governing which was laid before the House on 19 January? It is a matter of great concern throughout the country and particularly to betting shops staff and greyhound associations.
May we also have a statement at some stage on the future of pylon lines in north Yorkshire and Cleveland, a matter that has not been resolved—

Madam Speaker: Order. Members should ask only about one subject. I will not be able to call all hon. Members who have been rising at this rate, so I ask Members to be brief and to ask only about one subject.

Mr. Newton: In the interests of conforming with your guidance, Madam Speaker, may I say that I note my hon. Friend's request? I was sorry that he was frustrated in the matter of his Adjournment debate last night.

Mrs. Helen Jackson: Will the Leader of the House acknowledge and, further, consider a debate on early-day motion 941?
[That this House is appalled that the number of disconnections of water supplies to inhabited domestic premises has trebled, from 7,273 to 21,586, since 1990–91; notes that the health and safety regulations in the Factories Act 1901 and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963 ignore the fact that for millions of people the domestic space is also their area of work, that there is no provision for emergency access to water where disconnection has taken place and that this could lead to extreme danger to health in the event of an accident or fire in the home, that where disconnection has taken place this is likely to affect access to heating and will furthermore expose people to danger due to heating systems running dry, and that the installation of prepayment meters does not solve these problems and can exacerbate them in the case of the frail and elderly; and calls on the Government to extend the Health and Safety Regulations to cover all inhabited domestic premises and to instruct the water companies to recover outstanding payments through the courts and not by disconnection.]
Given the representations that we have heard today from the Institution of Environmental Health Officers and

from public health authorities and the citizens advice bureaux about the unacceptability, in health terms, of disconnecting domestic premises from their water supplies, will the right hon. Gentleman agree that a debate is necessary to ensure that water companies recover debts owed to them through the courts and to make it illegal for them to disconnect supplies from domestic premises?

Mr. Newton: I shall draw that matter to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend. The hon. Lady will know that, with the encouragement of the Director General of Water Services, water companies have been taking action to ensure that those who have genuine difficulties receive all possible help in meeting their debts.

Mr. David Lidington: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate next week on the plight of the Maxwell pensioners, and especially on the continued and disgraceful failure of the office holders who are responsible for the administration of the common investment fund to agree, nearly a year after Maxwell's death, to apportion that fund among the different funds that are responsible for the pensioners?

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend will know that, in some respects, the effort that has been presided over by Sir John Cuckney, who was appointed earlier this year by my right hon. Friend to oversee the recovery operation—if I may put it that way—which has been going well. I know that there are concerns about the allegations of delay on the point that my hon. Friend raises, and I shall bring them to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security.

Mr. John McAllion: The Leader of the House will know that, since the privatisation of water in England and Wales, domestic disconnections have continued to increase. Since this barbaric practice, which quite deliberately puts people's health at risk for the sake of private profit, is illegal in Scotland, and as this place claims to be a unitary Parliament, will the Leader of the House arrange for Ministers from England and Wales to come to the House next week to make statements explaining to English and Welsh Members why their constituents have been discriminated against in this terrible way? At the same time, will he arrange for a Scottish Minister to reassure us that disconnections will continue to be illegal in Scotland?

Mr. Newton: No doubt the hon. Gentleman is well aware that my colleagues from Scotland will be here on, I think, Wednesday. He may care to raise with them at least part of what he has just raised. As for the rest of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shll not attempt to add to what I said to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mrs. Jackson).

Mr. Harry Greenway: Could we have a debate on arrangments for pedestrians in heavily trafficked areas, and especially on the refusal by many people, particularly pensioners and young mothers, to use subways in Northolt and other areas of London for reasons of danger and so on? May we have such a debate next week so that those issues can be highlighted, no more expensive subways are built and proper surface crossings are made as they are needed?

Mr. Newton: I am a little uncertain whether the main drive of my hon. Friend's question is towards the Home


Office or the Department of Transport, but in so far as it verged towards the latter, I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be here on Monday 8 February to answer questions.

Mr. David Trimble: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an early debate on last night's BBC2 "Timewatch" programme which confirmed the crucial role of the Irish Government in the the formation of the Provisional IRA and the collusion between both those parties in launching the present terrorist war? Such a debate would be important, because some of the terms of the contract that was then entered into between the Irish Government and the Provisional IRA are still in force.

Mr. Newton: I made some comment on that, in response to one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends, when replying for my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on Tuesday, and I do not want to add to that. The right thing to do now is to concentrate on the efforts of both Governments to defeat current terrorism.

Mr. Roger Knapman: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to early-day motion 1259?
[That this House is concerned that British troops in the former Yugoslavia are facing not only hostile forces but also pay cuts and redundancy notices; and accordingly calls on the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that British troops are paid in full and relieved of worries about their employment prospects.]
The motion has been signed by 23 Opposition Members. Some of us seem to remember that, at the last election, Labour's policy was to cut the defence budget by 30 per cent. Could we have an early debate on this matter so that they can tell us when the Opposition changed their minds?

Mr. Newton: I am tempted, but perhaps it would be proper for the response to come from the Opposition Front Bench. I am afraid that I cannot promise a debate next week.

Mr. David Clelland: As a Conservative Member confirmed earlier, things are gloomy for British manufacturing. Therefore, the news that Vickers Defence Systems in my constituency has won an order from Oman is welcome. Does the Leader of the House agree that the credit for that should go to the company and its skilled work force? Would he further lift the gloom by calling for an early statement by the Secretary of State for Defence to confirm that the order for the Challenger 2 upgrade is to go ahead?

Mr. Newton: I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's question to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments, which were explicit rather than implicit, at the beginning of his question. Motor car exports, chemicals exports and many other manufactured exports are doing extremely well. The prospects for manufacturing industry in the wake of the cuts in interest rates look rather better than they have done for some time.

Mr. Simon Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend cast his mind back to the last time that we had a debate on tourism? If, like me, he has difficulty remembering because it was so long ago, will he please find time at an early date for such a debate, especially in the

light of the Government's announcement in the autumn statement that they are proposing to cut the grant to the English Tourist Board by £4 million over the next two years?

Mr. Newton: Perhaps the first thing that I should do in the wake of my hon. Friend's question is to check the date, which I do not have in my mind, on which the last debate took place. On the political thrust of his question, if I may put it that way, he will be aware that the Government are focusing the money that they spend on sport and tourism where it will be most effective, and especially in the overseas promotion of Britain.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Will the Leader of the House accept my apologies for not having given him notice of my question?
Can we have a statement next week on the use, or unique abuse, of the unopposed return procedure that secures from the House an order to print so that the document is secure from legal action under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840?
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that Act prevents redress against actionable statements about police officers in the Nimmo Smith/Friel so-called report, prematurely praised by hon. Members before they had had an opportunity to read it?
Would he reflect on page 87 of "Erskine May"? Does he accept that there are people, police officers and others who are seething and incandescent with anger, as I am, about the procedure to which I tried to object on Monday, as is shown in column 817 of the Official Report? Will he reflect on what can be done?

Mr. Newton: I shall respond in the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman undoubtedly put his point. I have no doubt that he had perfectly good reasons for not giving me notice of his question, and I make no complaint about that. However, I think that he will understand that, without notice, the proper course is for me to reflect on the very carefully considered words that he used.

Points of Order

Mr. Chris Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Yesterday, during Environment questions, the Minister for the Environment and Countryside, in response to a question from myself, said that there were plans to fit flue gas desulphurisation to three power stations in Britain. In fact, he must have known that, although that was the original intention, the current position is that only two power stations are to be retrofitted with flue gas desulphurisation. That was confirmed by the chief executive of PowerGen in evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on 17 November 1992.
This is a matter of considerable importance to the debate on the future of the coal industry. I am sure that the Minister did not intend deliberately to mislead the House. Can you, Madam Speaker, please ensure that the Minister has an opportunity to come back to the House to put the record straight?

Madam Speaker: I assume that the hon. Gentleman, before raising his point of order, informed the Minister that he was about to do so.

Mr. Smith: indicated assent.

Madam Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Chair is not responsible for the accuracy of statements made by Ministers—or by hon. Members, for that matter. If, having raised his point in this way, the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue it, he must do so through other means.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. As you will know, we are to debate the railway privatisation measure on Tuesday. As the Government have promised to issue at least six major policy statements which have a factual and direct effect upon that highly damaging legislation, only two of which have been published, please may we have some guidance?

Madam Speaker: The hon. Lady should have sought to catch my eye during business questions in order to raise that matter with the Leader of the House. It is for the Minister responsible to ensure that documents are available before a debate.

Mr. Brian Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I have some guidance in relation to early-day motion 1255 relating to the GAH group of consultants, which was appointed to advise on the national lottery? Hon Members, not including myself, allege in that early-day motion that a reply to a question put by me was far from accurate.
As a great many questions remain to be answered and additional information is coming in all the time about GAH Consultants and their suitability for the post, may I have guidance on how we can ensure that the issues raised in the early-day motion are answered by the Secretary of State for National Heritage or whichever Minister now has responsibility for the appointment of the GAH group?

Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman said towards the end of his point of order, that is a matter for a Minister and should have been raised during business questions. It is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter of policy.

Mr. John Austin-Walker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that the Department of the Environment told the press that a statement was to be made today at 3.30 pm on the financial settlement for local authorities. I have recently checked, and that

statement is not available in the Vote Office. I seek your guidance on what may be a planted question, which was tabled for written answer yesterday at the eleventh hour and which I understand is the basis of the press statement. If a Minister wishes to make a statement at this time, is it not usual for him to do so in the House so that he may be questioned upon it?

Madam Speaker: I can barely comment until the hon. Gentleman has put before me what he wishes me to see. When Ministers desire to make a statement to the House, they do not need my permission to do so: they merely inform me that they will do so. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, as I said previously, I am not responsible for the tabling of questions on the Order Paper by hon. Members.

Mr. Martyn Jones: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that a Foreign Office Minister has today intervened in an export of vehicles to Croatia which, I understand, would have broken the United Nations guidelines. Surely a statement should have been made to the House on that issue today.

Madam Speaker: Hon. Members are being rather ingenious in putting these points of order to me; they should be put to Ministers. The hon. Gentleman must find other methods of pursuing what he has in mind. I can assure him that no Minister has informed me that he wishes to make a statement today.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY 1993

Members successful in the ballot were:

Mr. Andrew Miller
Mr. Hartley Booth
Mr. David Atkinson

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.),

JUDGES

That the draft Maximum Number of Judges (Northern Ireland) Order 1993 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. &c.—[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Considered in Committee [Progress, 28 January]

MR. MICHAEL MORRIS in the Chair

Amendment proposed [28 January]: No. 8, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 100c on page 17 of Cm. 1934)'.—(Mr. Blair.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

The Chairman of Ways and Means Mr. Michael Morris): I remind the Committee that we are also considering the following: Amendment No. 110, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'but in respect of paragraph 9 on page 11 of Cm. 1934, Her Majesty's Government as part of their formal process of ratification shall state that so far as the definition of the single market is related to an area without internal frontiers (to be enshrined in Article 7a of the amended Treaty establishing the Community) they regard absence of such frontiers only as not impeding the operation of that market and without prejudice to any action related to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.'.

Amendment No. 133, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(excluding Article 100c on page 17 of Cm. 1934).'.

Amendment No. 134, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert '(excluding Article 100d on page 17 of Cm. 1934).'.

Amendment No. 359, in page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'except Article 3(d) as referred to in Article G on page 9 of Command Paper number 1934'.

Amendment No. 104, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'and IV' and insert 'IV and VI'.
Amendment No. 46, in page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
'but not Article 100c in Title II thereof.

Amendment No. 113, in page 1, line 17, at end add—
'The above subsections shall only come into force subsequent to the laying before Parliament by Her Majesty's Government of a Command Paper concerning the implications and operation of the provisions contained in new Article 100c of the Treaty on European Union (Control of third country visas by the European Council of Ministers and related powers of Members states) and to approval of its terms by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.

New clause 12—Application of Article 100c of the Treaty of Rome to certain provisions on co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs—
No notification shall be given to the Council of the European Communities that the United Kingdom has adopted a decision of the Council under Article K.9. (Application of Article 100c of the Treaty on European Union) of the Treaty on European Union unless a draft of the notification has first been approved by Act of Parliament.".

New clause 13—Adoption of conventions in the fields of justice and of home affairs—
No convention drawn up by the Council of the European Communities under Article K.3.2.(c) of the Treaty of European Union shall be adopted by the United Kingdom unless a draft of the proposed instrument of adoption has first been approved by Act of Parliament.".

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Ms. Morris) made a justifiable complaint about the nature of the amendment paper and the difficulty of following the order of debate.
Even those of us who have sat in the House for many years are experiencing difficulty—and I confess that I am among them—but for no reason to do with the Chair or the authorities of the House. We all acknowledge that the treaty is exceptionally long and complex and that the Bill is exceptionally short.
Perhaps I may suggest a way of simplifying that aspect. Many years ago, your predecessors, Mr. Morris, hit on the idea of producing an informal, provisional list of selected amendments. I understand that previously the selection had not been announced until the first amendment in the group was reached. That innovation has proved most successful. I therefore suggest that when you, Mr. Morris, publish the successive daily list of selected amendments, the amendments and new clauses that are additions to the groups are underlined or have some signature, to make it clear that they are new. That could save many right hon. and hon. Members a lot of time, and would perhaps assist the Committee in the debates.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his constructive suggestion, which I shall certainly consider. However, before any changes are made, they would have to be put to the Chairmen's Panel because they would have implications beyond the Committee stage of the Bill that is now before us.
Right hon. and hon. Members may have other thoughts on improving our procedures—of a constructive nature, I hope. If they will let me have them at the end of the Committee stage of this Bill, I shall have a meeting of the Chairmen's Panel to consider whether our procedures can be improved.

Mr. Peter Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. At the beginning of yesterday's debate, I raised with the Second Deputy Chairman the singular nature of three amendments under consideration —amendment No. 110, and new clauses 12 and 13. I asked in particular whether consideration could be given to a separate vote on them at the end of the debate. The Second Deputy Chairman replied:
The occupant of the Chair always takes note of requests for Divisions. However, the Division that the right hon. Gentleman seeks would take place not at the end of this debate, but when the appropriate point on the selection list is reached."—[Official Report, 27 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1087.]
I believe that there was some misunderstanding. The Second Deputy Chairman obviously took on board my point about the new clauses, but I believe that amendment No. 110 can be voted on at the end of the debate. I wanted to point that out to you, Mr. Morris, because I believe that my previous submission was slightly misunderstood.

The Chairman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He may not be quite correct. I do not think that amendment No. 110 can be voted on immediately following amendment No. 8, which I invite the right hon. Gentleman to resume debating.

Mr. Shore: As you indicated, Mr. Morris, I was proceeding with my speech when the 10 o'clock rule struck us last night. Up to that point, the theme of my speech had been the amazing contrast in the Bill's provisions, in respect of the open door that article 8a allows to 300 million citizens—to nationals of European states. Article 8a(1) states:
Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States".


That seems an enormous enhancement of the right of entry to this country of 300 million Europeans. That open-door, free movement contrasts with the tightening controls and the fortress Europe approach towards the rest of the world and third countries. I maintain that considerable discrimination would be involved in the way in which we treated different people according to whether they were European nationals or people from third countries with connections to ourselves.
4.15 pm
I pressed the Home Secretary on how on earth we were to have effective border controls and distinguish between Europeans and non-Europeans without proper inspection of passports. He said that he always made it plain that we intended to maintain some form of passport control in the United Kingdom, but I was not impressed by the evidence that he gave, because the Commission does not accept the British and the Home Secretary's position. It states that it is a right accorded under the treaty and, therefore, in the last resort it should be determined by the European Court of Justice. It has not come to that, but I put it to the Committee and to the Government that it is a very real apprehension and I should be interested to know what serious legal advice the Home Secretary has had that the British case could be sustained in the European Court of Justice against the pressure of the Commission and presumably that of other member states.
There is also the obvious practical problem of distinguishing between different European citizens. The amendment refers specifically to the necessity of maintaining some safeguards and checks because of the requirements of law and order and our legitimate worries about drug smuggling, terrorism, and so on. How can frontier control be maintained without taking a good look at the passports of those coming in? We do not need an elaborate procedure but simply the right and the insistence that we can look at people's passports.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I do not think that the Home Secretary made clear how the distinction would be made between, for example, French citizens from Martinique, who would be full French citizens because they carry French passports marked that they come from an outer territory, and Jamaicans or Barbadians from part of the British Commonwealth who, because of the independent state of their own country, do not automatically carry a British passport. How would passport officers make that distinction? Is there some facial tic or physical sign that would mark out a Martinican from someone else?

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to one of the genuine complexities. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) pointed out yesterday that in effect it would turn on whether one had a pale skin. I am afraid that, to a great extent, that would be true. Although I am sure that it would be repulsive and repellent to the Committee to operate a passport procedure on that basis —and it is not something that people are seeking—it is an almost inevitable result of the agreements, laws and treaty arrangement that we have entered into. It is a profoundly worrying and unacceptable part of the treaty arrangement.

Mr. David Winnick: Apart from the impact on race relations in Britain, to which my right hon. Friend referred, is it not a fact that the facilities and privileges that will be given to citizens of member countries coming to Britain, and reciprocated for Britons going to those countries, are part and parcel of going down the federal road? However much, for obvious reasons, the word "federal" is omitted—had it not been for the objections of the British Government, the word would have been included in the treaty—we shall, by the turn of the century, have obliged people such as the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) who want to achieve a federal union.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend makes a relevant point, given authority by the letter that the Commission sent to all member states on how to interpret the issue of freedom of movement. That letter stated:
If the Community is to become a genuine internal market, and if this market is to operate under the same conditions as a national market, physical controls must be abolished. This means the abolition of all controls (formalities, procedures, checks, examinations, inspections, etc.) at internal frontiers, just as there are no border controls between regions in national markets.
What is being suggested there is obvious. Already, at any rate in the eyes of the Commission, we are part of not just a single geographical area but of a union in which citizens have the right to move from, say, Germany to England and back again—if need be to reside here, look for jobs and stay—just as citizens of the United States have the right to move from New York to California and stay there, look for work and otherwise move backwards and forwards at will.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) mentioned the importance of good race relations. The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) was here at the time of the Single European Act and will be aware that the Government of the day said there was no way the European institutions would involve themselves in our immigration controls. We have since discovered that that was wrong. The Government are now saying that we now have a double lock on it all, though in a few years from now we may discover that, without much ado and influence from this House, our immigration procedures have been passed across the channel to Brussels.
If we are concerned about good race relations, we must have fair and firm immigration policies. If the people of Britain perceive that those policies are not working but are being operated by Brussels in such a way that this House can do nothing about it, that will be devastating for race relations. Will not that be bad news for those in favour of European union? Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should not press his amendment.

Mr. Shore: It would be unacceptable to the people of Britain if national controls over immigration and asylum policy—over people from third countries seeking asylum here—were transferred to the European Community. Nor should it be taken for granted that the British people would consider it acceptable that 300 million Europeans should have rights of entry not related to job seeking and residence in this country—I doubt whether anyone has even realised that—and my amendment seeks to address the qualifications of that right of entry. In particular, it draws attention to security, drugs and so on. It is an


important issue which has not been raised in the House. I appreciate that all matters of entry, migration and freedom of movement are sensitive, but it is important for the issue to be addressed seriously and in public.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The Home Secretary may introduce administrative arrangements that satisfy his understanding of the interpretation of the treaty, but under the treaty it is open to every citizen of the union to appeal or apply directly to the European Court of Justice. So all the assurances and wit of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) and the Home Secretary are only interpretations of how they hope that it may come about, rather than how it will be adjudged. Is not the great weakness of all these arguments that we are no longer masters of determining these arrangements ourselves?

Mr. Shore: I can give an example of what the hon. Gentleman refers to. If, for example, unwelcome Europeans came to this country for one reason or another—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Like Le Pen?

Mr. Shore: Like Le Pen. That is a good example. The Home Secretary could not issue a deportation order. The writ of a deportation order does not obtain against citizens of European countries. That is extraordinary.
Apart from public health and one or two other stated very special exceptions, there is not the right of deportation as it exists in relation to other people who come to this country and we think that they should not have the right to stay and that it is not desirable that they should stay.

Mr. Marlow: The right to exclude people from the United Kingdom is an important point. The right hon. Member might disagree with me, but at present we can, with the prevention of terrorism Act, prevent people from the Irish Republic who are deemed to be bent on terrorism in this country from coming to the United Kingdom. If this part of the treaty goes through, are we not going to find ourselves in front of the European Court at some stage—my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will not accept it at this stage—and we shall be powerless to prevent these people coming to the United Kingdom?

Mr. Shore: That is another complexity of the situation, but I think that we shall leave it to the Home Secretary, who I presume is going to reply later, to give his answer.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I hoped that I had already addressed this at some length. I shall not go over again the fact that the right hon. Member is speaking about article 8a and competing interpretations of that, which goes back to the Single European Act which the House accepted many years ago.
On the question of freedom of movement and right of residence here, the right hon. Member is correct that under this Bill there is freedom for any EC national to live and work here so long as they are self-supporting, but there are set exceptions, which we can debate later, for those excluded on public policy, public security or public health grounds.
I spent a long time yesterday trying to explain that neither the treaty nor the Bill transfers control over

immigration policy to the European Community. Indeed, immigration matters are expressly excluded from Community competence unless the double lock in article K.9 is turned, both by the Council of Ministers unanimously and then by this House and Parliament, ratifying any agreement in the Council. If we look at what we are actually debating and these matters of law and order and safeguarding, in paragraph 5 of article 100c expressly says that it is
without prejudice to the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon the Member States with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.
The same proviso occurs in article K.2, which is also part of this treaty. Paragraph 2 of the article says:
This Title shall not affect the exercise of the responsibilities incumbent upon Member states with regard to the maintenance of law and order and the safeguarding of internal security.
Our checks against terrorism and against crime and smuggling do not require systematic frontier controls of everybody crossing the border, but matters essential for our security and protection against international crime can be specifically defended by the agreements we have entered into.

Mr. Shore: The quotations given by the Home Secretary were relating, I think, to asylum, in the first instance, in articles 100c and K, to immigration from third countries. I should like to see a direct quotation of the same provisos relating to article 8a, dealing with European citizens who claim the right of entry.

Mr. Clarke: I do not have article 8a before me. The freedom of movement of EC nationals is guaranteed by article 8a, but we can still arrest criminals; we can still enforce the prevention of terrorism Act, as we do quite frequently against people coming from Ireland across what is an open frontier in respect of frontier controls.
Article 8a is not before us now. The right hon. Gentleman keeps asserting that he is worried by the Commission's interpretation of article 8a. My hon. Friends keep reminding us that the Government have continued to regard our obligations under article 8a as quite different, and we maintain that position.
This agreement does not transfer any sovereignty away from us towards the European Community except in article 100c which transfers the comparatively small matters of the list of countries from whose nationals we require visas and the format of that visa—what it looks like. That transfer to Community competence, which is convenient and efficient, does not begin to produce all the bogeys that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends, are trying to raise.

Mr. Shore: I assure the Home Secretary that I am not dealing with bogeys. I am dealing with matters which, regrettably, the House has not considered properly in the past. The Home Secretary finds it convenient to describe them as bogeys, but they are much more than that. We have already discussed the power of the double lock over third-country entrants to the United Kingdom being transferred in article 100c, and we have also discussed asylum policy in that regard. What we have not yet discussed is article 8a.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Although the legal points that the Home Secretary has made are correct, the fact that a potential terrorist or drug dealer only needed to give what is called a Bangemann wave of his passport when walking through a frontier would make it rather more difficult for the police to identify him, unless they knew in advance that he would arrive.
It should be borne in mind that the Bangemann wave question emerged from discussions between the Home Secretary and the Commission. Is it not rather misleading to suggest that the implications of the legislation will not make it much more difficult to control the importation of drug addicts, terrorists, murderers and other criminals? The Home Secretary must be well aware that the mere flicking of a passport will greatly reduce the powers of frontier officials to identify the criminals that I have mentioned.

Mr. Shore: I believe that that is true. The Home Secretary said yesterday that, provided that the passport officers had sufficient evidence of identity, all would be well. What is sufficient evidence? Would it be sufficient not actually to look at a passport? Would it be sufficient simply to wave a piece of magenta-coloured cardboard? No, it would not. A passport must be inspected properly, and that need cause no great inconvenience to anyone. I have left this country and returned to it many times; I have never failed to show my passport, and I have never felt a sense of outrage when it was examined—quite the contrary.

Mr. Spearing: The Home Secretary said that article 8a was not before us. Article 8a will be in the treaty of Rome, as amended, and it states:
The internal market shall comprise an area without internal frontiers, in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured in accordance with the provisions of this Treaty.
Does not the Home Secretary agree that we are dealing with an amending treaty? The treaty that we are discussing —the treaty on European union—amends the updated treaty of Rome. It is rather like an amending Bill, which, in amending an existing Act, gives rise to a new Act. We are discussing the new treaty that will result from the marriage of the treaty of union and the treaty of Rome. Surely the Home Secretary agrees that the consequences will have to be faced: that is the subject of the amendment.

Mr. Shore: I believe that it is wrong in principle to extend the right of freedom of movement of labour, as originally defined in the treaty of Rome, to the wide-open area of legislation in which freedom of movement ceases to be employment related or tourism, and becomes the absolute right to reside in the country of one's choice. That is a major transfer of one of the crucial aspects of sovereignty as we have known it. It is deliberate. I believe that it is wanted and required precisely because it represents a signal surrender of national sovereignty and control. It is one of the four or five powers that belong to any separate nation state.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will the right hon. Gentleman treat with extreme caution the Home Secretary's advice on this matter, not through ill will but because the advice that the House of Commons has been given over a number of years has not always proved to be correct? I remind the hon. Gentleman that fisheries legislation which was passed

by the new Parliament following the 1987 election was, in effect, set aside under the judgment of the European Court. That legislation was not introduced with malign thoughts. The Government believed that it was compatible with their obligations under the subsequently amended treaty of Rome. They were wrong then, and they are likely to be wrong in this case. If there is a scintilla of doubt, we should not touch something that extends the remit of the European Court.

Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. We do not have to go back very far to find the most remarkable example of misunderstanding by the British Government of the nature of the commitment under the Single European Act. No Conservative Member, and perhaps no Opposition Member, thought that we had made a commitment in principle to a European central bank and a common currency—matters which arose out of the interpretation of the preamble. It matters enormously that we should get the words right, be very sure about interpretation and, above all, look with the utmost care at what the European Court of Justice can do in the matter of widening interpretation.

Mr. Ron Leighton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the matter of interpretation, there is a difference between the Home Secretary and the European Commissioner? The European Commissioner says one thing and the Home Secretary says another. How confident can we be that the views of the Home Secretary will always prevail? The Home Secretary said yesterday:
It is the case that Commissioner Bangemann asserts the view that under article 8a we are obliged to abandon what the Community would call internal frontier controls, which means checks at our ports and airports into European movements, but that is not a position that has ever been accepted by the British Government.
What the Home Secretary says is completely different from what the Commissioner says. Yesterday he went on:
I have had discussions with Commissioner Bangemann on ways in which EC citizens can be distinguished from third country citizens".—[Official Report, 28 January 1993; Vol. 217, c. 1127].
The Home Secretary has never explained how that will be done. Is it to be a case of differentiating between a white person and a black person? This is another example of differing interpretations.

Mr. Shore: I shall return to that tactical problem, which was raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She asked how one was to distinguish French citizens coming from La France d'Outre-mer—Guadeloupe or Martinique—and exercising their right of entry unless one examined passports. That is the crux of the matter—passports must be examined. The amendment would provide strong support for the Government's position by writing in at least two grounds on which they could reasonably need to be satisfied about the entry of anyone into this country.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Committee has not discussed a matter that seems to me to be absolutely fundamental. In France and many other continental countries that are apparently without barriers there is constant checking of identity cards and other papers. That can be done internally at any juncture. People can be stopped at any time. In Brussels, it is quite common for people employed in various sections of the Community to be stopped on the street and asked to present their papers. At no point has


the Home Secretary made it clear that legislation of this type can be made to work only by insisting that the police have the constant right to stop people and ask them for clear identification. By implication, that means identity cards, and all that goes with them, once people are in the country. If one accepts that that is what lies behind this, one can see why Mr. Bangemann has decided that we can go ahead quite cheerfully with waving people through at ports of entry.

Mr. Shore: My hon. Friend has made a powerful point. If we abandon the control of entry, there must be something to take its place. That something is very likely to be the demand for identity cards and, in addition, power for the police to stop and check individual citizens whenever they feel that there is a reason to be suspicious.
That does not make for good police-citizen relationships, and it is something which most people in Britain would find profoundly unattractive. It is a powerful additional reason for not abandoning frontier controls.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Shore: No, I am just about to finish.
I simply come back to this point. There is no secret about it: the European Commission and most of the other European countries wish to create a state, and they know very well that, in order to create a state in western Europe, one must build up certain powers that have previously belonged to national Governments. They have moved across a whole range of matters. They now want a common foreign policy, a common defence policy and all the things that characterise a separate sovereign state.
One of the half-dozen quite crucial matters is the right of citizens of a state to go wherever that state claims to have its own boundaries. It is clear to me that the European semi-state—it is not yet a fully fledged one—is claiming the rights of citizenship and of abode throughout the whole area of the so-called European union.

Sir Teddy Taylor: As you know, Mr. Morris, I have an amendment tabled in exactly the same words as that of the Leader of the Opposition.
I just want to say a few words about what the Home Secretary said to us. He told us that we have no need to worry about the implications for national control and immigration because of article 100c, and that, if there is any problem, it is not because of what is in 100c. It is because of what was done by nasty Lady Thatcher in the Single European Act; it is her fault and no responsibility of ours, so if there is any problem it is hers.
I hope that the Home Secretary will take rather seriously what I am going to say now. If he takes that view, will he please go back and read what was said at the time of the Single European Act when certain hon. Members, including myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who asked questions were told that there was no need to worry about terrorism and all the rest of it becausee adequate safeguards were written into the treaty and that everything was fine and dandy. Let us look at Hansard and the words of the Home Secretary himself. There we see it written out clearly and specifically. On control of terrorism and the rest of it, he says that the new agreement that they have come to is that
In the case of … other EC nationals, the purpose of the check [at the border] is simply to establish their nationality".—[Oficial Report, 17 December 1992; Vol. 216, c. 445.]

There is now no requirement to look at a passport, no requirement to talk to someone and no requirement to do anything, unless it is to find out that someone is an EC national.
The Home Secretary will say that there may be advance warning. Of course it is possible that the police will say that three terrorists are coming across the border on 14 July at 3 o'clock and they will be there, waiting for them. But how on earth will a normal person, watching border controls, contain terrorism or control drug peddling without the opportunity of looking at a person's passport and asking him some questions?

Mr. Marlow: I would like to return to the point that my hon. Friend made at the beginning of his speech. I was here as well, and I asked questions too. We were told at the time of the Single European Act that we would maintain control over immigration policy. There was no suggestion at that stage that we would have to put up with the "Bangemann wave". We were told that if we wanted to stop people at our frontiers and look at their passports, we could do so. We have discovered that we were wrong and that the Government have discovered that they were wrong. If the Government were wrong then, how much more likely are they to be wrong now in their interpretation of these provisions?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am afraid that it is not just on this occasion, Mr. Morris, as you well know. Sadly, for all kinds of reasons—and I am not suggesting any conspiracy —hon. Members have been misled, deliberately and systematically, over the giving of powers to the European Community. I suggest that in this particular case of immigration control we are being misled again today on the issue of article 100c. I want to explain why.

Sir Russell Johnston: Presumably the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) would therefore argue that we should change our regulations in respect of the Republic of Ireland.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It is well known that I have always taken the view that we should change our special provisions in relation to the Republic of Ireland. That is a separate issue which was determined by the British Parliament. The hon. Member is well aware of my views, because I believe that we have a fundamental duty, for the safety of our people, to take all possible steps to control the small minority from other countries who want to engage in terrorism, killing and violence.
I hope that hon. Members will consider carefully this new concession by the Home Secretary. In fairness, he was in a difficult position. He was confronted by Mr. Bangemann who said that on 1 January all border controls in Europe must go and that anyone who got into another country should be able to come here, and it was made clear by the Commissioner in a public statement that after 1 January, unfortunately, if we stopped anyone coming across the borders within Europe we would be taken to court.
As he set out in a statement, the Home Secretary had a meeting with Mr. Bangemann. They have not agreed on anything, he says—"Nothing has been decided"—but the fact is that because of the adoption of this new situation they have put the matter off. Now it will go to court and, sadly, because of the wording of the Single European Act


we will probably lose the case. It has been put off by coincidence until, no doubt, we have finished discussing the Maastricht treaty. In any case, hon. Members should be aware that we were misled at the time of the Single European Act, and this alone should make us think very carefully indeed.
Does it really matter about frontier controls? It matters desperately because all hon. Members are concerned with maintaining good race relations. I am sure that, whether hon. Members support a weak or a strong immigration policy, we at least agree that we have a duty to try to maintain good race relations. If hon. Members have any doubt about the importance of this, they should look at what happened in Germany when people there gained the impression that the influx of refugees from eastern Europe was out of control. The moment that the British public gains the impression that we will be unable to control the number of people coming into this country for any reason whatever, it will have a fundamental effect on race relations.
Although Southend is one of the nicest places in the world, I was appalled at some of the letters that I received on the admission to a nearby borough of 12 refugees from, I think, Bosnia. I met them. They were Muslims and very nice people, but the fact that they were going to appear on the council list of a neighbouring borough caused a great deal of resentment among some people in Southend and nearby. Hon. Members should be aware that the moment that the public gain the impression that we are not totally in control of entry across our borders, nasty things will happen in race relations, and the people who suffer will not be people like us; it will be the immigrants, the people with black faces. We should be concerned about our duty to them. The best thing that we can do for them is to give the clear impression to the public that we are in control and that we will not have a situation where people can go across our borders without difficulty and without being impeded in any way.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am interested in this concept of how one identifies, even within the categories where the Home Secretary still has authority. If a criminal is coming into this country, we would ordinarily notify customs and immigration of the name, and possibly provide a photograph, of the individual. There may not be a photograph, but one of the first areas of investigation in excluding persons is the name factor. How is the name of a person coming into this country identified without looking at a passport or other document? I am having great difficulty understanding how the Home Secretary intends to enforce the law and order and criminal provisions in this measure.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is repeating the point that I made and it is a very serious one. People should think about it, especially those Euro-nuts who want to give all the powers to Europe. If people who are known criminals, terrorists, traders in blood are coming across the border, how can they be identified? There may be wonderful police intelligence, one may know that they are coming, but if one cannot look at the passports or talk to those people, how can they be identified?
This is a fundamental change in our practice. It was announced by the Home Secretary on 17 December. Who

agreed to this? When did the House of Commons agree to it? The answer is that we never agreed to it, but, sadly, it became one of the essential consequences of the Single European Act. The Home Secretary may again say, "It was the nasty Lady Thatcher, it was not me", but, if he looks back—

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: My hon. Friend really must not attribute to me views that I do not have. I am a supporter of the Single European Act. I joined my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in voting for its consequences. I was then in complete agreement with Lady Thatcher. I do not know whether she has changed her mind about the Single European Act. We are discussing article 8a of the Single European Act, which is something to which we all agreed some years ago. I have explained the British Government's view of article 8a and the obligations which we have entered into. The description that I have given is indistinguishable from that which was given to the House when we signed the Single European Act and when we took the Act through the House. That remains the policy of the British Government.
It is true that I had a disagreement on the interpretation of article 8a with Commissioner Bangemann. I do not know what the view of his successor will be, but the British Government are quite clear about the obligations that they have entered into.
The debate on these amendments today is on the basis of a pillared approach precisely because we are not conceding to the European Community institutions, the European Court or the Commission any control of our immigration policy. I cannot, in an intervention, go into how we work under article 8a, but at the moment policemen do not stand alongside the immigration officers looking at every passport; customs officers do not look at every passport. Of course, we will retain our frontier controls because our immigration officers must be satisfied that those going through the European channel are European nationals. The immigration officers are accustomed to dealing every day with people like me who have forgotten their passports. They have all kinds of people coming through—

The Chairman: Order. I understood that this was an intervention. It is a very long intervention.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I am afraid that my confidence in the Home Secretary is again shaken. Whatever he may think, I did not vote for the Single European Act; I voted against it on every single clause. He said that we all agreed to it, but I did not, and I hope that he will withdraw that.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will remember that during the course of that Bill he and I raised many questions on which we were given assurances that have not been followed up in practice. That is why we take what may be described by some as a jaundiced view. What we said then was not listened to, it was dismissed, and that is exactly what is being attempted now.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is quite right and I hope that the Home Secretary will at least listen to this point. If he looks back, as I hope that he will, to the debates on the Single European Act, he will see that we were treated then, as we are being treated now, with absolute contempt. They said our points were silly, nonsense, rubbish. I know that the Home Secretary has not had time to read this treaty, but I hope that he will look


back at those debates, the questions that were asked and the challenges that were made. He will see that we were given a clear, specific assurance that we would still maintain total control of law and order and terrorism. Sadly, this is not the case, because of a decision, not made by the House of Commons, but announced by the Home Secretary in a parliamentary answer on 17 December. This is a fundamental change and one that worries us.

Mr. Marlow: I accept that I am being a bit greedy, but this is an important issue. The Home Secretary has just said that we will maintain our own immigration controls. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East has studied this to a far greater extent than I have and can perhaps tell me if I am right in thinking, looking at article 100c, that it will be possible, after 1 January 1996, for the rest of the Community to require New Zealanders to have visas before they come to the United Kingdom, and that there will be nothing that we can do about it. I should like to know whether that is true or false.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It is a massive change. If the EC decides by a majority that it wants to require visas, there will be nothing that we can do, nothing that the House of Commons can do. If we are forced to insult a friend for all kinds of political or other reasons, the House of Commons will be powerless. Yet we are told that nothing much is happening, we are not changing anything.
I must say to the Secretary of State, as we said about the Single European Act, that we are being misled. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) may smile, but if he were to go to the homes of people affected by terrorism or drug addiction, he would know just how important it is that we maintain control of our frontiers. If we do not do so, it will be a bad thing for Britain and a bad thing for our people. It is something that matters a great deal.

Mr. Leighton: Is not the problem here that, over the years, many people have not told the truth? A lot of political leaders have moved in a crab-wise manner, disguising what they are really doing. Would it not be far better now for people who take the view of the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to say that they support the treaty, are in favour of the free movement of people and the abolition of internal frontiers, and are proud of the fact, because that is what they want? In other words, should they not tell the truth about the thrust of the treaty?
Instead, we have the Home Secretary telling us not to worry what Mr. Bangemann says or what the Commission says, because it is all right and we do not really intend to abolish frontiers. Is not that the difficulty, that people have not been frank and open and honest about their intentions?

Mr. Spearing: rose—

Sir Teddy Taylor: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

The Chairman: Order. It is normal for an hon. Gentleman to respond to an intervention before he gives way to yet another hon. Gentleman, but maybe he was concluding and did not want to develop his speech.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It was to save time, because I have spoken longer than I intended to.
I wish that the Home Secretary would stop laughing. This is not funny; it is a serious matter that affects people's lives. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may think it is funny, but it is not.
Of course, the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) is absolutely right: there is nothing that we can do when something has been decided. I do not think that this happened because the Government wanted to do these things; it was because they were manoeuvred into them and are now trying to say that it is not as bad as people think.

Mr. Spearing: I want to revert to what the Home Secretary has said. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, while not everybody has to show documents, it is the power to require them to do so that is disappearing? In respect of the Single European Act, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or any hon. Gentleman, remind the House of the Second Reading speech of the then right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East, Sir Geoffrey Howe, when introducing the Bill? Is it not a fact that the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs was preparing a report on that matter, but that when the Second Reading debate took place they were on a visit to North Vietnam and could not contribute to it?

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, but I must press on. I do not want to make a habit of making long speeches in these debates. I just want to make some specific points and seek opinions on them.
The Home Secretary said that nothing much will go under K.9; we can stop it by a veto, and that will be that. That is an over-simplification because, once the original decision has been made on the kinds of things that will be done, there can be majority votes thereafter. But the worry is that, if there is a situation in which the members of the Community agree unanimously—that is, with the inclusion of Britain—on a new rule or policy, and the people of Britain decide on reflection that they do not like it, and the Government or Parliament say that they do not like it, nothing will be able to be done about it. That is the one thing that we should be absolutely clear about. Whilst we may accept that there is unanimity under article K.9 and that the Government will be in a position to say no, the fact is that if the agreed policy turns out to have unfortunate consequences, or if Parliament and the people of Britain decide that they do not like it, there is nothing we can do unless a further decision is taken at the Council.
The third and final aspect of decision-making—

5 pm

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am trying to be helpful and I will avoid laughing at my hon. Friend but, clearly, he has not had time to read article K.9 on which he is lecturing at such length. Article K.9 makes it quite clear that nothing can be brought into Community competence, beyond what is covered by article 100c, unless there is a unanimous vote of the Council, including the British representative. Incidentally, it also includes the vote of the Danish representative who, under the present Government, is even more emphatic than we are that Denmark does not wish to extend competence in this respect. My hon. Friend wandered, saying that if there was a majority vote something would happen, but there is not a word of that in article K.9.
Even if the British and Danish Governments were to change their minds and join in a unanimous vote to extend competence, article K.9 gives the House an absolute right to refuse to ratify it. It is what is called a double lock. That destroys the foundation of my hon. Friend's speech which is that what we are debating today brings immigration issues into Community competence. He is plain wrong. He is an extremely intelligent and sensible man with great expertise on Europe, but he has either not read or not understood a word of the article.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Each of us saying, "You are talking rubbish" does not help. Article K.9 states:
The Council, acting unanimously on the initiative of the Commission or a Member State, may decide to apply Article 100c of the Treaty establishing the European Community to action in areas referred to in Article K.1(1) to (6), and at the same time determine the relevant voting conditions relating to it.
That may or may not mean something, I do not know, but it clearly refers to determining
the relevant voting conditions relating to it.
We could disregard those words, say that they are rubbish and irrelevant and say, "Teddy Taylor hasn't read the treaty", although the Home Secretary said that he himself had not read it. However, the plain fact is that if all member states unanimously agreed to, say, policy A and policy A turned out to be a disaster, something which the Government, Parliament and the people of Britain find appalling, we cannot repeal that policy ourselves. We are handing over decision-making to a new European state. Although the Home Secretary may say, "Not at all, you are being misleading", it is so.
If we pass a law on asylum or immigration and decide, on reflection, that it is not working out and that nasty things are happening, we can at present pass an amending law. We should appreciate the fact that, even with unanimity even if we disregard the words that I read out and even if we say that we can stop it, if we hand over powers and then find that it does not work out and has nasty consequences for immigrants and for us, there is nothing we can do about it.

Mr. Marlow: If we agree with other European countries that we are going to hand decision-making to Europe and there is ratification in all 12 countries, it becomes European policy. Is my hon. Friend not saying that once it has become European policy, we can never take it back? If my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary disagrees, will my hon. Friend give way to him and let him make his point?

Sir Teddy Taylor: Of course I will. We should know what we are doing. If under article K.9, we hand over the right to decide, we do not have the power unilaterally to change any subsequent decision.
A third important point to bear in mind is that the forum for and type of decision-making in the European Community is different from that of the House. There are 12 member states and, inevitably, gaining acceptance for one policy might mean needing support in a different area of policy, perhaps on financial control or food. That will mean that issues are not decided on their merits.
If anyone doubts that, let him ask himself why Britain and France recognised Croatia, which has unfortunately created terrible problems in Yugoslavia. We knew that to

do so was contrary to our policy; we knew that it was wrong and silly and that the Croats were not in control of their country. We also knew that, by so doing, we created fear and panic among the Serbs. However, the Germans wanted our support for unrelated matters, and they got it. The point is that the pattern of decision-making is different.
In all sincerity, I ask the Home Secretary to accept that something serious is happening. I hope that he will accept that if we pass powers to another body which then makes decisions which we find damaging, we can do nothing.
Let us stick to article 100c. In his interesting speech, the Home Secretary said, "Don't worry about article 100c, there's nothing much in it". He said that we were merely to have a harmonised visa certificate, one or two changes. If that means only that every European state is to have the same visa form, what is the advance in that? How does it help anyone in the world if 12 countries have the same forms printed in the same language? Presumably it will cost something to produce them, but where is the benefit? This is the Home Secretary's proposal, so I should like him to tell us the advantage of having the same form with the same words over the present words. I can see none.
As the Minister said, sometimes I do not read things carefully enough. I see that the splendid Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office is here—he reads things carefully and sometimes reads treaties. What is the advantage of having a common visa form? There must be a reason for it.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: If my hon. Friend were to have detailed discussions with senior officials of Interpol and Europol, he would learn that they would be very much in favour of a common procedure which would help to increase security and safety and to reduce criminality in all member states, including Britain.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It would be different if we were to have proper control of visas but that is not what the Home Secretary said. He said that we were to have a common format. How does that help security, the police or Interpol? How does it help to all use the same words instead of the French and British having their own little visa forms? I see no great advantage. If I have missed something, or if the Foreign Office knows something that I do not, I hope that it will tell us.
We are being asked to approve that measure today.It will cost something; I do not know how much and the Government always underestimate. Surely there is supposed to be some benefit in changing the forms. The Home Secretary should tell us what it is. We need money for many things, and the Government are up to their ears in debt. I am told that borrowing is now an amazing £1 billion a week, so we should be watching expenditure. If the Home Secretary wants us to agree to the proposal, will he please tell us the advantages?

Mr. Michael Spicer: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), I think that I am right in saying—it can be checked later—that Interpol has specifically stated that Europol is a waste of time.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I do not want to get on to the issue of Europol because it would be outside the terms of the debate. The Home Secretary said that he knew all the


answers, so I wish that he would intervene. He has said that the introduction of a common visa form was one of only two changes; will he tell us the advantage?

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: If my hon. Friend had found the time to read the selection paper, he would know that it was in order to discuss Europol. It was debated earlier when he was unfortunately unable to be with us.
There are advantages for efficiency, although not great advantages, in having a visa document which looks the same issued by the 12 states. It is a small matter of convenience and efficiency. I said earlier that it was not a great matter, and it is not one about which most people would get as steamed up as my hon. Friend. He has finally got himself in order and spoken about something of relevance to the treaty of Maastricht. Does he feel so passionately about this instrument of our national sovereignty that the form for British visas should look different from that used by the other 11? Is that what makes his heart beat faster?

The Chairman: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) has been perfectly in order all the afternoon.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The Home Secretary is trying to answer my questions with his usual insults. First, he says that I voted for the Single European Act, which I did not; then he says that I was not here, whereas I have attended regularly. Why did the Home Secretary not answer my question? I hope he will think about that. I said, "You are forcing us to use a common form. What is the advantage? What benefit will there be?" Apart from flinging insults, which seems to be his normal style when dealing with serious and important issues, the Home Secretary has not given one reason. I hope that the House—

Mr. Stuart Randall: rose—

Sir Teddy Taylor: Perhaps the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West will give us a reason.

Mr. Randall: One good reason is that in order to detect crime one needs information, and to obtain that we need computer data bases. One of the key requirements for that is to have information in a common format, so as to put it into the computer systems. That can be used to target crime of all kinds.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may be misleading himself. Everything can be put into computers whether the same forms are used or not. If someone is interviewed and asked, "Do you want a visa?", the same information can be included anyway. I believe that the hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. He thinks that we shall have a common format for applications. No, there is no suggestion that we shall have the same application form, or that everyone will answer the same questions—so the information will not fit into the computer at all. The French may ask different questions.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: There is a reason, and it runs right through the whole scope of the treaties—to give visible expression to the Euro-state. We have seen that with passports—that was supposed to be a trivial matter, too—and now we see it in the form of a common visa certificate. We are seeing the standardisation, harmonisation and aggrandisation of the concept of the Euro-state.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. Friend watches such developments, and he has hit the nail on the head. We find that almost everything being done now, in Maastricht and elsewhere, has the purpose of establishing the concept of a European state.
Something even more significant is involved here. Article 100c goes even further than the Home Secretary said. Time and again I have asked—

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Home Secretary has just told us that the matter of the visas is not a big thing. However, his predecessor said the exact opposite. The previous Home Secretary said in the House:
In the event, as the House will know, only two immigration matters will be taken into Community competence; first, a substantive one".
And what is that substantive matter? It is the very matter that the present Home Secretary now dismisses as nothing:
—the common visa list—which is the agreement on the countries whose nationals would require visas for entry to the Community: and secondly, the more technical question of the format of a common visa."—[Official Report, 2 March 1992; Vol. 205, c. 26.]
The previous Home Secretary considered those substantive matters, but now when the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) tries to argue about them they are dismissed.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. I want the Committee to remember that I have asked the Home Secretary and the supporters of the Bill what possible benefit of any sort will come from what appears to be a significant change—the use of the same form with the same words—and we have had no answer at all.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: I do not know whether this would be considered a benefit, but if there is a standard form of words, giving a standard form of rights to the visa holder, the matter will be construed and interpreted by the European Court of Justice. Once that happens, our present power under British law to restrict the people coming into this country would no longer exist as a power that we can exercise through the British courts as the final arbiter of rights. Instead, the European Court of Justice would arbitrate. That is a wonderful example of the way in which we are letting power slip away from the nation state to the European Court of Justice, which has repeatedly said that it is the creature of the union. That is what I believe my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East really fears.

Sir Teddy Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend is so right. I hope that hon. Members will listen to every word that he says. We are doing something stupid, bureaucratic, nonsensical and unnecessary—unnecessary, that is, unless, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) said, the single form is required because it will carry single benefits and single entitlements and rights. My hon. and learned Friend hit the nail on the head. I am sure that he is right. But if he is not, no other reason has been put forward.
The Home Secretary says that we should not worry about article 100c because there is nothing much in it. Yet we shall pass over to the EC—by majority voting, after 1996—the right to decide which people need visas. That is


supposed to be of no significance. They will be sitting around the table—let them decide by majority voting. Well, I believe that it matters quite a bit.
Until now this country has decided which countries we wish to be subject to visa requirements. We have taken into account all kinds of considerations. With the Caribbean, for example, the considerations have included our long-standing friendship, and the Commonwealth connection. One of the other countries affected will be the United States of America. At present we do not need visas to go there, and a lot of us think that that fact is important—some may think that it is not—for establishing the continuing bonds between Britain and the United States. The plain fact is that after 1996 that will all be scrapped. The Home Secretary may say that I am talking rubbish or nonsense, or being silly, but I beseech him to look at the list.
I happen to have a copy of the list of proposals published by the Schengen countries. No doubt the Home Secretary will say that that will be different from the EC list, but the Schengen countries are substantial, and following their discussions they published a list. We also have the Government's list. If we look under the letter B we discover that the proposals involve visas for countries such as Bahrain, Belize and Barbados, which are not on the list of countries for which we now require visas. Those are just three countries, but they are rather important ones.
Hon. Members should be aware that after 1996 it will not be the Government who determine the places where visas are required. If a majority of EC countries say that they want or do not want visas for certain places, there will be nothing that the House of Commons can do about it, even if 630 Members say, "This is shocking. We do not want a visa for that country", or "We do want a visa for that country." Our wishes will be irrelevant and powerless.
Maastricht is clearly the end of the road, but the prospect of the powers of the House fading away would not matter so much if they were going somewhere over which the people had some control. That would not matter two hoots.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend is making a great issue of the idea that once we have surrendered powers to a European institution we cannot get them back. If it were unanimously decided that we should transfer the items under article K.1(1) to (9) to Community control, and then we ratified the transfer in the House of Commons after a debate, or a late-night vote, would it not be open to the House at a later stage to take those powers back by holding another debate, and another vote?

Sir Teddy Taylor: I cannot reply to that question in detail, because much wider issues would be involved—the same issues that are involved when people ask, "Can Parliament pass a law to withdraw from the EC?" To answer that question would be to stray from the debate. But I can tell my hon. Friend that the only case law on the subject involves Greenland, which was linked to the EC, as we all recall. The only way in which Greenland could get out of the EC, after an election, was not to pass a law in the Greenland Parliament, but to ask all the member states to pass a law allowing Greenland to leave. I do not want to go into that big issue now, but my hon. Friend should

be aware that there is a great difference of view on whether Britain would have that right. I think that we would not. I do not think that it would be possible for Britain to withdraw from the EC or any of the obligations unless every other state passed a law to allow us to do so. That is the view that I have always taken, and if there is any doubt about it, Greenland provides the example. The other countries had to pass a law, and Greenland had to give up many of its fishing grounds, which it greatly regretted.
Apparently, the first aspect does not matter at all, because the Home Secretary could not give us a reason for it. However, the second aspect is rather more important, and I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that. If, for reasons of friendship or co-operation, for the sake of improved relations, or because of an emergency, we wanted to operate a regime between us and another country whereby visas would not be needed, we should no longer have that power. It would have gone. If we do not like what the Europeans do by majority vote, too bad.
What about the people of Britain? If we introduced visas for the United States, some of them might be angry. They might send letters to their Members of Parliament; they might demand a debate in the House of Commons. They might even take the matter into account in an election—but what is the point? Their views do not matter, and they will have no influence on these events at all.
This is an important democratic issue. Hon. Members will recall that higher interest rates were forced on us by the exchange rate mechanism, despite mass unemployment in this country—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is developing his argument extremely widely now.

Sir Teddy Taylor: I shall come to my final point then, Mr. Morris.
The Home Secretary says that there is nothing much to these matters. He is sure that the lists will be drawn up by sensible people in a way that we will like. The fact is that that may not happen. I plead with him to remember what happened with article 8a. We know that the Commission takes a view of that article wholly different from the Government's. The Home Secretary said in a statement issued in September 1992:
Nothing has been decided and there is much more work to be done. We agreed that our officials should continue to work on the details.
Article 8a means the abolition of frontiers, just as I said that it would at the time of the Single European Act. It is not just a matter of people being able to visit Britain after having obtained a visa for Italy. Everyone will have the right to reside or visit. We should remember the number of refugees in Germany—they will all be able to come here, without restriction. That has not happened yet because it has not yet gone to the court. The Home Secretary has had discussions with Mr. Bangemann, and although he is no longer in his post, someone else is, and it is hoped that something will be done. We have all heard about the waving of passports, known as the Bangemann wave. If we lose the case at the court, all our discussions about controls will fade into insignificance. People wanting to come to this country will need no visas if they come from any other European country.
We know that the Italian controls are practically non-existent and that Greek controls—apart from at Athens, where they are tight—are limited.
Although the Commission has threatened us with proceedings in court, it has apparently now agreed not to go ahead pending discussions. Still, I believe that individuals could take us to court. If they do, it will be catastrophic. Perhaps then the people of Britain will realise that our controls have gone. The Home Secretary is well aware that that could happen, but he will say that he hopes it will not.
All this arises out of article 8a, even though we were told at the time that there was no need to worry about it —that we would still have complete control over immigration. I ask the Home Secretary to acknowledge that this House has been misled time and again. Anyone who says that article 100c will not inevitably lead to visitors—unless they are identified beforehand as terrorists —being able to enter this country from every other European country is kidding himself. The Minister has told us not to worry—that the article does not entail that at all. The Minister will say that someone visiting France on a visa will not be able to get into Britain automatically. What should I tell people who want to visit Britain after 1996? Should they go to the French embassy and ask for a visa? Should they also go to the British embassy and ask for one? The implications of the common visa and of the wording of the treaty as it touches on common external frontiers are clear. The Government say that they reserve the right to refuse people entry if they are criminals or terrorists. If the Minister thinks that article 100c does not matter, I ask him to look back at 8a.
I know that the Home Secretary has been through the nightmare of discussions with Bangemann and others. All this is very frightening, after all. What is proposed is dangerous, silly, damaging to our democracy and potentially damaging to the good race relations that we have in this country. The measure is unclear and imprecisely worded—and it carries with it the same sort of dangers that we said would arrive in the wake of article 8a and the Single European Act.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: I am delighted that the Opposition have tabled an amendment to delete article 100c. We need to stop beating about the bush. Article 100c exists to keep black people out of Europe—and to keep Arabs and Russians out of Europe. The intent behind it is racist, and it will create an operational structure that is racist, building on trends that already exist. That is why I am proud to go into the Lobby to vote against this racist measure, and to join my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) in so doing.

Mr. Calum Macdonald: How does my hon. Friend square what he has just said with the argument of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) that article 100c would allow an influx of people to the United Kingdom? Who is right and who is wrong about the significance of 100c?

Mr. Livingstone: It would certainly allow anyone in Europe to come here—that is the fear that seizes some Conservative Members. Large numbers of Germans, for instance, might want to come here. Why Germans would want to come and enjoy our lower standard of living is beyond me. It is of course inconceivable that anyone on benefits in Germany would want to come here to increase

his standard of living. This is not really about what happens inside Europe: it is about creating a barrier around Europe. It is a move towards fortress Europe, and the people who will suffer are those outside it.
I am always amazed by the naivety of so many Labour federasts, who keep pointing to all those dreadful Tories who pass all this awful racist legislation but who believe that, as soon as Maastricht is in place, everything will be wonderful and all the wicked legislation will be overturned. There are historic trends towards racism in Europe, and this House has pandered to them under Tory and Labour Governments—and Maastricht panders to them further.

Mr. Bill Walker: If the fortress Europe that the hon. Gentleman envisages become reality, is it not possible that people from South Africa who may want to come here if life gets extremely difficult there—I have written letters today about the grandchildren of Scots who want to return here—may be kept out?

Mr. Livingstone: Defending white racists from South Africa who deserted this country for a better standard of living from the efforts of black people and who think that they should be welcomed back here with open arms will not be top of my list of priorities for the rest of this decade. They made their bed; now they must lie in it.

Mr. Walker: The Scottish missionaries will be delighted to hear what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Mr. Livingstone: I must tell—

Mr. Max Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that the 8 million or 9 million British citizens living in Commonwealth countries would experience little difficulty returning to any member state, including the United Kingdom? He is absolutely right to say that this provision is about creating a fortress Europe to ensure that as few black and Asian people as possible are allowed in. Is it not also deeply offensive that the 8 million non-EC nationals, predominantly black and Asian, will face grave difficulties in exercising their rights to free movement within the EC under this measure?

Mr. Livingstone: That is a worrying point. Black British people who travel to Europe are often already subject to appalling harassment by the French police as soon as they get off the boat. In the delegation that went to lobby on these matters at Maastricht, white British people were allowed straight through without being harassed, but even in Maastricht itself black Labour party members demonstrating against the treaty were subjected to considerable harassment. One of the problems as we move inevitably towards European union is that, although I am critical of the inadequacy of Britain's race laws, they are infinitely superior to anything on the stocks in Europe. Black Britons will find themselves disadvantaged and discriminated against in Europe on a scale that they thought they had got over in Britain.

Mr. Bernie Grant: What is even more outrageous is that, in discussing Maastricht and all its industrial political and economic ramifications, the British Government have not even thought about the effect of the treaty and the Single European Act on black British citizens. Is that not a dereliction of duty?

Mr. Livingstone: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The interests of black Britons have been left completely off the agenda in all these discussions and negotiations.

Mr. Macdonald: I do not understand my hon. Friend's argument. Surely black British citizens face great difficulty when they visit the continent because they have to deal with all sorts of passport controls. The whole point of the legislation is to remove those controls and make it illegal for them to be harassed when they try to enter other countries.

Mr. Livingstone: I was speaking not only about black British people being harassed at passport control but about the people who accompanied my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant) who led the activities in Maastricht. Those people were harassed on the streets by the police zeroing in on them. Most of the other European countries have not given their immigrants equal rights. They have not given them the vote or protection.
One of my closest colleagues went to lecture to West German Social Democrats shortly before unification. The lecture and the debate was about what parties of the left should be doing for women. My colleague asked those who were, I suppose, the most progressive members of that party, the sort of people with whom we find ourselves in agreement, what programmes they had instituted for Turkish women who were living there, some of them for 20 to 30 years. The reply was, "We don't do anything: they will be going home one day." That is how much further many of our European partners have to go to catch up with even the limited anti-racist measures in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) made a brilliant speech. I do not think that he could see the approval, the absolutely elated look, on the faces of Home Office civil servants in the Box behind the Chair. They were nodding enthusiastically as my hon. Friend gave the most clear exposition of Government policy that we could have heard. The Home Secretary was nodding. He was clearly delighted, because, as he has told us, he has not read the treaty and could not have done anything like as good a job as my hon. Friend.
One almost had the feeling of watching an American gangster movie in which Mr. Big sits and beams with delight as his bright young protege announces some new way of ripping off society and making them rich. It was like coalition government, and a perfect defence of the Government's position.

Mr. Blair: My hon. Friend is ribbing me for agreeing with the Home Secretary. How does he feel about being in agreement with the noble Baroness Thatcher and the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor)?

Mr. Livingstone: My hon. Friend would find it interesting to go to the Library and look at the volumes of Hansard containing the debate on the Bill dealing with Kenya Asians in 1968. That was one of the most disgraceful periods in Parliament's history: overnight, after a wave of hysteria and racism in Britain, we stripped black British citizens of their right to come to this country. The legislation was overwhelmingly carried. Who was in the Lobby against it? There was a handful of left wingers and some honest right-wing Tories who thought that it was a disgrace.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the intervention by the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) was sickening and irrelevant to the important issue? Although he and I fundamentally disagree on almost every political issue, at least we both believe in the preservation of democracy. That is what is important.

Mr. Livingstone: Another consensus on the Front Benches is to make the whole debate so obscure that the British people do not know what is happening. That is why they are united on not letting the British people choose.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield spoke glowingly about the way that the Danish Government had consulted their people. He took so many interventions from my hon. Friends that he could not fit mine in. I wanted to ask why he spoke so glowingly of the Government of Denmark trusting its people when our Front Bench lines up behind the Government in an agreement not to trust the British people. If the treaty is so wonderful, why can the British people not decide on the issues?

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman may have one view on immigration policy—that is his privilege—and I may have a totally different view; I presume that is my privilege. We might vehemently disagree with each other, but the one thing on which we totally agree is that immigration policy should be decided in this Parliament.

Mr. Livingstone: I do not want to break this bipartisanship, but at the end of the day I am not terribly concerned about where it is decided. My concern is to defeat racist immigration policy. Therefore, I would have voted against all the immigration measures of the past 30 years, and I shall vote against this measure, because it will make it even more difficult for black people to get into this country. If I thought for a minute that the Maastricht treaty was progressive, I would vote for it, but I did not enter politics to vote to give bankers the right to run Europe.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would clearly explain the coalition between himself and some of his hon. Friends and what he called the honest right wing of the Conservative party. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) has said that he is against article 100c because it takes away our right to exclude people from this country and would open the door to unlimited immigration. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) says that he is against 100c because it is designed to exclude black people who would otherwise come here.
If either of them looked at 100c, they would see that it does not bear at all on the right to decide who comes to this country or on immigration control. Could they agree that one of them must be wrong? What is the reason for the objection to 100c that this hard-left, hard-right coalition somehow agree to see between the lines?

Mr. Livingstone: Not only does the Home Secretary not read the Maastricht treaty: he does not listen to his colleagues. They object because they believe in the nation state and in the right of the British people to determine these matters. I oppose it because I am opposed to racism wherever it raises its head. Those are the issues that will put us in the same Lobby.
When someone is in the Lobby only he knows why he is voting that way. I do not have the slightest qualm about


that. I have found myself in the Lobby with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on one or two occasions, but I imagine that neither he nor I would wish to tell our constituents too much about that. We were there because we believed that something was wrong. The reasons were irrelevant, because at the end of the day what matters is how one votes. I am voting against 100c because it is racist, and that is it.
While listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield, I was struck by the number of times that I have been involved in debating about high principle and policies and been carried away by it all. I came out thinking that I had achieved something, but six months later I asked myself, "What has happened to it? How was it translated into reality?"—because that is a different matter. I have sat on committees that took decisions which we thought were great, but a year later nothing had filtered its way down through the dross.
Our debates in Committee have to be considered in the context of what is happening outside, who administers the policy and who makes the day-to-day decisions. How will the immigration officer interpret what we say against the long background of tradition on how we approach these matters?
I am not happy with the origins of the measure. Many of my more naive colleagues pop up and down at party meetings and speak about awful happenings at Trevi, saying that this legislation will drag them all out into the open. It will not. Nothing in the treaty will bring Trevi decisions into the open so that they can be debated in Parliament, and to imagine that that will happen is an illusion. The treaty will legitimise what is discussed in private in Trevi. In effect, the situation is worse, because the structure includes the Schengen group, which has its own tightly defined agenda. Its members also attend Trevi meetings and dominate them.
People in the Labour party have been complaining for years that a party within a party can have disproportionate effects. That is why Militant was expelled. Half a dozen people can agree in private and dominate a bigger meeting because they work together. That is happening in Trevi. The reality is that, if there was anything of which the Government could be proud, they would publish it.
What happens at Trevi? Representatives from each of the Twelve sit around and decide how to keep people out of Europe. They work out which country has the most restrictive policy to keep Arabs, for example, out of Europe, and they all adopt it as the norm. They work out which has the most restrictive policy to keep people from the Caribbean out of Europe, and they all adopt it as the norm. That is why the meetings are not public. It is the most disgusting exercise of hidden racism that we have witnessed in recent years. I am not surprised that the Trevi group is not prepared publicly to state what is happening, or to open its meetings to the press and the public.
What is Trevi there to do? We need only to look at the list of policy areas that it considers—it is an insult. It discusses terrorism, arms, rabies, AIDS and immigrants. What does that list say about those who participate in Trevi and how they perceive immigrants to Europe? Immigrants are dealt with in a group whose remit is to tackle AIDS, terrorism and rabies. That does not fill me with enthusiasm about what Trevi discusses. I am happy to give way to the Home Secretary if he will say that he is

prepared either to publish the details of those meetings or to argue at the next meeting that Trevi's meetings should be held in public.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am incredulous about the hon. Gentleman's extraordinary list. Trevi does not consider immigration—it is a group of Security Ministers. A separate ad hoc group of Immigration Ministers discusses immigration matters, but not in the terms described by the hon. Gentleman. His conspiracy theory misleads him. I do not know what he was reading a moment ago, but it was certainly not a description of the Trevi group, which does not have immigration within its terms of reference.

Mr. Livingstone: I am not at all surprised that those Ministers meet as a sub-group of Trevi. If the Home Secretary is so happy with its meetings, let them be in public. They are vital to the interests of the British people.
Let no one on the Labour Benches think that voting for Maastricht will open up that little nest; it will just institutionalise Trevi's secretiveness. What is decided at Trevi will be steamrollered through, and the House will have little opportunity—

Mr. Blair: Perhaps my hon. Friend would confirm that what happens in Trevi is happening now. It already exists. If it is wrong, it is wrong now, irrespective of Maastricht.
All that article 100c does is to lay down a procedure for agreeing those countries from which visas are required for their nationals and also a common format for the visa. Can my hon. Friend explain why co-operation on those matters is so appalling and must lead to racism? For the life of me, I cannot see that.

Mr. Livingstone: I am glad that my hon. Friend reminds me of that point, which is the very point that I raised yesterday, when I eventually managed to intervene in his speech. Having had so many interventions from his Labour colleagues last night, my hon. Friend staggered out of the Chamber saying, "If I had known it was going to be like that, I would have worn my shinpads."

Mrs. Dunwoody: Would my hon. Friend point out that the Schengen list includes Belize? Those of us who are concerned about the right of Commonwealth citizens to come here can only assume that, if that list is extended throughout the Community, the effect on them will be clear, damaging and unacceptable.

Mr. Livingstone: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
What worries me most about article 100c is a phrase that I mentioned yesterday in my intervention:
a threat of a sudden inflow".
That clearly shows how the drafters of Maastricht see the people of the third world—a threat. That underlies the whole logic of the article. I fail to understand how anyone who professes to have any degree of socialism or even any commitment to social justice could vote for a treaty that includes such a phrase. It is blatantly racist. My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield is grimacing, but that is what I believe. Anyone who is not prepared to vote against the treaty is acceding to racism and even supporting it.
Even if everything else in the treaty was wonderful, would still vote against it because of that phrase in article 100c. Those of us who represent communities with large numbers of immigrants know how things work today, and we know that the treaty will make that worse. We are already operating an immigration policy—which, to our


shame, has been accepted and perpetuated by past Labour Governments. There has been 30 years of pandering to racism and introducing more and more restrictions to prevent people from coming to this country.
After housing, the second largest number of complaints I get from my constituents is about immigration policy. Those of us who represent areas with mixed communities know that, if one of our constituents married a white person from Australia, New Zealand or America, that partner would be in this country within weeks, if not days. If that constituent married someone from India or the Caribbean, it could be three years, four years or never before that partner was admitted to this country.
5.45 pm
That is the context in which we must consider the treaty. It does not start with a blank sheet of paper; it is laid on top of what already exists. It is a clear sign that the nations of Europe view people outside as a threat. We could not find any organisation among the black or brown people of Britain that does not see the proposal as a fortress Europe to exclude those from outside, to keep the wealth of Europe away from the third world and to keep the people of Europe pure from
a threat of a sudden inflow",
as the treaty puts it.
I should be happy to give way to any hon. Member who could interpret that phrase in any other way. It is an attitude that we have seen before, including in the House.

Mr. Giles Radice: The European Community comprises only 12 nations. Outside the Community, there are many other nations in central and eastern Europe—including, of course, the former Soviet Union. I suspect that the reference to "a threat" in the treaty is concerned mainly not with countries outside Europe, but with the other countries of Europe where there may be severe problems, such as civil war. I think that that is what article 100c is all about.

Mr. Livingstone: I am not interested in defending only the people of the third world; I am also interested in defending the citizens of Russia. If a civil war breaks out in Russia or the Ukraine, should we send people back to die?

Mr. Radice: I was trying to correct my hon. Friend, who was directing his remarks purely towards the third world. I am trying to bring him a little more in touch with the reality of Europe at the moment.

Mr. Livingstone: When we talk to French politicians, it is obvious that their obsession is with the peoples of north Africa and the number of Arabs coming to Europe. I imagine that, in Germany, the obsession is with the east. In Britain, some politicians are obsessed with people from India, Pakistan, Africa and the Caribbean. Obsessions differ as we move around different parts of Europe, but at the end of the day the attitude is the same—keep them out.

Mr. Winnick: I know that my hon. Friend is not especially concerned about the nation state, but does he accept that the virtue of being, so far, an independent country is that we can decide our policies on immigration, whether negative—as, unfortunately, most of them are

—or otherwise? If the treaty becomes law, we will talk about the issue, but the final decision will be made elsewhere.
Does my hon. Friend accept that those Labour Members who believe in the nation state are far from being racist? Like my hon. Friend, they are anti-racist. Some of them, including me, voted against the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968, which took away the rights of so many people who should have been allowed to come here. There were 61 of us, most of them Labour Members.

Mr. Livingstone: My hon. Friend is right. In this Chamber, we can fight against racist immigration policies, but under the Maastricht treaty, such policies will be decided bureaucratically. Ministers will come back to the House saying that they did their best but were outvoted, that they would have used their veto but we might have had money taken away from us as a result.

Mr. Bernie Grant: I agree with my hon. Friend's interpretation. The threats talked about by Le Pen, Jacques Chirac and others are posed by people of a different colour and culture. Is that not borne out by the fact that it is the clear intention to expand the EC to take on board countries such as Russia, Czechoslovakia and Poland, so that the people of those countries will not be seen as a threat? Therefore, the only threat that would be perceived would be from people of colour, not from people in eastern and central Europe.

Mr. Livingstone: A clear strategy is emerging, whereby the Nordic countries, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, perhaps Slovakia, will quickly be brought in. Many eastern European nations will be brought in, largely to provide cheap labour. As they come in, I suspect that restrictions on people from the third world will become stronger day by day.

Mr. Marlow: Is it not a matter of fascination and note that the hon. Member for Durham, North (Mr. Radice), the Wykehamist old boy, intervened and, being more European than Mr. Delors himself, justified article 100c on the basis that it could be used by Europeans such as himself to keep Europeans out of Europe?

Mr. Livingstone: I find myself broadly in agreement with that. It is sad that, after years of defeat, years of being in opposition, and years of being ignored, Jacques Delors popped up at the Trades Union Congress, and the trade union movement was so delighted that someone in government somewhere would talk to them that they suddenly thought that Europe was the road to socialism —overlooking the fact that socialism is achieved by struggle. It is not handed down by European bureaucrats, any more than it is handed down by British bureaucrats. The whole Labour movement has gone mad and wild. They have disappeared so far up Mr. Delors' fundament that only the soles of their feet are visible.

Mr. Macdonald: On the implication of the sudden inflow of nationals, which my hon. Friend says clearly applies to persons from the Caribbean, India or Pakistan, he will see that article 100c, paragraph 2, concerns the need to introduce a visa requirement for countries which previously did not have such a requirement. The list of countries requiring visas produced by the Schengen countries includes the Caribbean countries, India and


Pakistan, and so on, and likewise with the United Kingdom list of countries whose nationals require a visa to enter this country.
Therefore, paragraph 2 cannot apply to those countries, because their nationals already require a visa to enter Britain or the EC. It must be directed at countries whose nationals do not presently require a visa—for example, Poland—where there might be some civil disruption which necessitated EC countries producing a visa requirement to cope with that emergency.

Mr. Livingstone: My hon. Friend is right. The present system is appalling, and this will make it worse. We have seen what has happened under visa restrictions. During the past few years, the Government have introduced visa restrictions for Sri Lankans, with the result that the flow of refugees from Sri Lanka has dried up. They could not get here. How could they? How can one obtain a visa while fleeing death? A person about to be bumped off cannot stand outside the British High Commission waiting for it to open in the hope of obtaining a visa to get out of the country. People escaping countries do so without visas or with false passports.
Then the Government introduced visa requirements for Ugandans, despite that holocaust, and that flow of refugees dried up. Then they did it for the Kurds and that flow dried up. Then they did it for the Yugoslavians, with the exception of people from Slovenia and Croatia, and that flow of people dried up. Visas are used to keep people out. They are used to prevent genuine refugees from coming here.

Mr. William Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a deep strain of authoritarianism runs through the treaty? Just as the laws could be manipulated to work in the direction that he has described, so it would be perfectly possible, under the authoritarianism that underpins the system, for them to be manipulated to work in the other direction.
Once such powers have been handed over, and, as some people may have noted, the European Court, after certain procedures under article K.6 had been followed, could take up the running of all this, not only might the system deprive our own Parliament and people of making decisions, but the decisions could be taken with increasing authority at the centre, by the unelected bureaucrats in the EC.

Mr. Livingstone: I agree. However, the problem is that one does not get much joy now from this Government when trying to obtain visas. We are already in an appalling situation. My worry is that it will get much worse. It is difficult enough to persuade this Government to allow someone into the country without having to trundle off and raise such issues in Brussels, where everyone will be passing the buck, blaming the Council of Ministers, and saying that a decision was not their fault and that they would have liked it to go the other way. That is the problem.
If the Maastricht treaty created a democratic Europe, that would unite people across Europe. Instead, it is a treaty that creates bureaucracy and rule by bankers. I fail to see how anyone on the left of the political spectrum —after, in the case of some of my colleagues, 20, 30 or 40 years of struggle for social justice—could say, "Here we are—Nirvana. The bloody German bankers are going to
What nonsense. That would be to turn our back on

everything that we had fought to achieve as a party. Not only is that the situation, but have people looked at the voting system for the central bank? It is not one vote per country, but one vote—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman's speech is entertaining, but it would help the debate if he returned to the amendment.

Mr. Livingstone: Decisions in the Council of Ministers about who should and should not obtain visas might one day be made under the same voting system as that for the central bank, so that the vote will be weighted by gross national product and population, with one nation having 25 per cent. of the votes. I hope that that will not happen.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield made the most impressive presentation of Government policy that I have heard for a long time. He drew our attention to what has happened to asylum seekers during the past 20 years. He told us that, in 1972, 13,000 asylum seekers applied to come to Europe, and virtually all were granted admission. Last year, 600,000 applied, but only 20 per cent. were granted admission. I should have loved him even more if he had developed that argument to explain why.
Much of the argument on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill and now on the Maastricht treaty and article 100c is based on the concept of the economic migrant who is abusing the situation. Many people who have been in politics for a long time will remember having struggled to get out of the country some trade unionist from El Salvador who was under threat of assassination, or some opposition leader who was being threatened by some brutal dictatorship somewhere.
That is the concept of asylum that we have in the back of our minds. The United Nations definition of an asylum seeker is someone who is in fear of persecution. As the world has changed, those seeking asylum in Britain have come from areas of armed conflict. They did not come because our social security system is the envy of the world —that is about 30 years out of date. If that were their motive, they would go to Germany, which pays decent rates.
Applicants to enter Britain come from areas convulsed by violent struggle—Sri Lanka, Iran, Iraq, Somalia, and Ethiopia. Often, they come from countries to which we have supplied arms, or with which we have some historic colonial link. They are not economic migrants, but people running in fear of their lives.
Let us consider the closest European conflict. The United Nations definition does not, we are told, apply to such people and to the 600,000 that I mentioned. Surely someone is in fear of persecution if that person is a Muslim woman being kept in a camp in Bosnia and raped daily by Serbian guards as part of a systematic campaign of terror and intimidation. I would say that such a person is a refugee, whether or not she fits neatly into the United Nations definition. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield had gone on to argue that the United Nations definition was much too narrow.

Mr. Blair: If my hon. Friend will refer to column 1097 of yesterday's Official Report, he will see that I made precisely the same point. I said that many people not directly classified as refugees by the United Nations, because they are not subject to individual persecution under the United Nations convention, are none the less in


desperate danger because of ethnic conflict or civil war. I made precisely the point that my hon. Friend accuses me of not making.

6 pm

Mr. Livingstone: I am delighted to hear that, and I shall be pleased to give way again so that my hon. Friend can explain how article 100c will assist such people to obtain asylum. Does he genuinely believe that the European bureaucrats will be more humane? Does he believe that the Council of Ministers, meeting in secret, will open its arms in a way that national Governments are not doing now?

Mr. Blair: Article 100c has nothing to do with asylum. That is dealt with by article K—and one does not even get to article K unless there is unanimous agreement. My hon. Friend may carry on making his point about article 100c, but it does not deal with the issue that he is raising.

Mr. Livingstone: We have seen that, whenever the Community reaches a crunch point, with half a dozen issues outstanding, there is a trade-off. The defence made so far in the debate is that unanimity is required, and that Britain will be able to operate its veto. What will happen in a crisis, when Britain's budget rebate may be at stake? Several other countries around the table could say, "If you are not prepared to drop the unanimity rule, we will vote not to renew your budget rebate."
That is exactly the kind of horse trading that we have seen in the Council of Ministers and at European summits. Our veto is not guaranteed for all time. A point will be reached at which a British Government will be prepared to surrender their veto, and that will be the end of it.

Mr. Marlow: Article K.3(2) states that the Council may
On the initiative of any Member State or of the Commission, in the areas referred to in Article K.1(1) to (6)"—
which includes asylum policy—
(a) adopt joint positions and … (b) adopt joint action in so far as the objectives of the Union can be attained".
There is unanimity, but asylum policies can be decided by article K.3(2). It is somewhat surprising that the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) is not aware of that.

Mr. Livingstone: Nothing is surprising. As was said yesterday in a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), the way that amendments have been submitted, collated, and selected, and the general confusion surrounding all that, makes for extreme difficulties. It comes down to opinion.
I wish that people's optimistic hopes about what the treaty would achieve were right. If so, I would vote for it. However, that is not the world that I know from my experience in local government and after six years in the House. One cannot work on the assumption that one can place the best interpretation on things, or that everyone will act with the best of motives. Usually, exactly the reverse is true: once people put their grubby little hands on a bit of power, they use it in their own interests.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, under not only Court of Justice arrangements but those of another place, proceedings, debates, statements by Ministers, and interpretations placed by Ministers on such measures are likely to be taken into account as travaux

préparatoire? Is it not possible that, if some of the statements made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, which are matters of interpretation, are proved to be wrong, the Committee may find that it was misled—perhaps in all honesty—because it did not understand what it was doing? As a result, we may find that we are caught in the very traps that the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) mentioned.

Mr. Livingstone: The one example used in all law courses about the problems of interpreting laws relates to a matter that is nothing like as complicated as the treaty. In 1968, the House passed the legislation on London Transport, which included a clause saying that the Greater London council should have the power to subsidise fares for whatever purpose. The then Member of Parliament for Finchley explained that that meant that there could be subsidised fare reductions, but when the Law Lords came to examine that legislation, they decided that it meant something completely different. If that is what the Law Lords can do with one simple sentence, I dread to think what they, or the European Court, could do with a treaty of such complexity.
When one compares the Maastricht treaty in all its complexity and deviousness—though perhaps one should not use that word—with the simplicity of the American constitution, one sees what a nightmare is being created for lawyers and judges.
I am drawing to a conclusion. I intended to make only a brief speech, but I received so much support from members of my Front Bench that I kept giving way.
I spoke earlier of the flow of refugees that had dried up as visa restrictions were imposed. As a consequence, of all those who sought asylum in this country every year, only about 30 arrived with visas. That is why the Government introduced carrier liability. One sees Mr. Big sitting on the Government Front Bench, saying, "This is all going to be wonderful," yet what was done by those who preceded him as Home Secretary the right hon. Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) and Lord Waddington? Theirs is a record of restriction and control.
The Government now rely on foreign airlines to act as a policing arm for Britain, to keep refugees out. British immigration officers are sent to other countries to stand by airline desks and persuade airline operators that certain persons should not be allowed to enter Britain. That is the most appalling abuse. British immigration officers are sent to train airline officials in other countries how to decide whom to keep out of Britain. We talk about defending the powers of the House and of the British people, but in practice we are devolving those powers because there is a desire to keep people of colour out of Europe.
Also depressing is the fact that the new Europe will decide which countries are safe. It will be interesting to hear from the Foreign Secretary the thoughts of the Foreign Office on that aspect. The Maastricht treaty will be used to draw up a list of safe and unsafe countries before we decide who we will accept as refugees.
What will happen in the case of Turkey? Will it be decided that Turkey is a safe country because it is part of NATO and an ally—or will those responsible be honest and offend Turkey by saying that it is a very unsafe country if one is a Kurd and has been subject to abuse, bombing, intimidation, and the suppression of one's culture? What nonsense. I suspect that the Foreign Office


is not happy about that, and that it sees a nightmare of strange relationships as European Ministers sit down together and decide categories of safe and unsafe nations.
The truth is that at the end of the day this is part of a long degeneration and that is why it has been seized upon so eagerly by both Front Benches.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman will have adversely affected his Front Bench team's opportunities of being selected in my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's reshuffle, but I recognise that the Con-Lab Front Bench in this matter has thrown out of the window any regard for the power of the vote, the historic origins of the Labour party, the ability to change laws and hold to account Ministers, Executives and Cabinets for the policies that are the laws of this land.
That is the essence which the whole nonsense of Maastricht contradicts, that is why the House fights and that is why there is an identity on doing down the Bill, when both Front Benches are indistinguishable and are now jockeying to be included in a reshuffle.

Mr. Livingstone: Sadly, I have to agree with the hon. Gentleman. The Labour leadership does not find the Bill objectionable, largely because it has done so much to suppress democracy in the past 10 years. I would not worry about the power of the vote; in the Labour party, we are moving towards one leader, one vote.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot find anywhere in the amendment reference to the Conservative or Labour parties. If we could get back to discussing the amendment, we would make some progress with the Bill.

Mr. Livingstone: I am sorry, Mr. Lofthouse, but I was led astray by an older man.
I see the measure as a further degeneration from a point of principle. Just over 30 years ago, the House debated immigration policy for the first time, when the Macmillan Government proposed restrictions to keep black people out of Britain. Now that the Cabinet papers have been released, we can see that there was a fear of racism and the fear that there would be a backlash. Rather than standing up to that and educating people, the Macmillan Government gave in.
I remember those debates—they were the first of which I was aware. I was 16 at the time, and I saw one figure of principle, Hugh Gaitskell, who opposed that law because it was racist. He believed it was racist, and he said so; he knew that he was alienating voters, but he fought for what he believed was right.
The treaty and the clauses are the result of 30 years of degeneration from that point of principle; 30 years of running in the face of racism rather than standing and challenging it; 30 years of pandering to racism by jacking up entry restrictions. Every time the Labour party has made a concession, racists in society have said that it is still too lax, and restrictions must be still tighter. We have reached a point where that means the most appalling injustice for many citizens of Britain.
If one marries a white person in America, Australia or Canada, that person will be allowed into Britain within days, but one can marry someone from India or Africa and never get them into Britain. Even after two or three children have been born into that marriage, an

immigration officer can still say that he thinks it was a marriage of convenience. That is a disaster, and it has done a great deal to undermine morality in British politics.
I am not attacking only the Tory party, although it is marginally worse. I remember that it was a Labour Government who stripped British citizens in Kenya of their right to come to Britain. I sat through five years of Labour government between 1974–79 waiting for them to repeal the Immigration Act 1971 that the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) had introduced and that we condemned in opposition but left on the statute book.
I remember reading in the accounts of that time, the biographies and diaries, the response to that wave of racism when Patrick Gordon Walker was defeated in the 1964 election. Were we principled? No. When Sir Frank Soskice, the then Home Secretary, presented a paper about immigration policy to the Labour Cabinet at the end of 1964, he said to the Cabinet: "Let us be absolutely serious about what we are talking about here. If we don't act to stop immigration, within a generation all our people will be coffee-coloured".
The debate on immigration has been a despicable record that besmirches the House. We have given in to reaction again and again and Maastricht is part of that. Finally, as I said earlier, even if everything else in the treaty were wonderful, I would vote against it because of this one clause.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I know, Mr. Lofthouse, that you are keeping a careful check on the length of speeches in debates on the treaty, so I shall attempt to be brief. I wish to make four or five points fairly rapidly.
The outstanding thing about the debate this afternoon has been the fact that no one has stated or acknowledged that the free movement of persons is in itself an enormously desirable objective. Surely the free movement of persons is a great advance in civilisation. It is a desirable and humane objective to which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House should aspire.
6.15 pm
Although I fear that it is not practicable to contemplate the establishment of free movement of human beings all over the planet, at least a regime of free movement of persons throughout western Europe would be a significant advance of civilisation.
There is a great danger that we shall fail to see the wood for the trees and become so bogged down by the detail —constitutional, bureaucratic, administrative or otherwise—that we shall fail to see the great principles enshrined in the treaty and the Bill, which ratifies it. Surely the achievement of the ideal of free movement of persons, which is already enshrined in the Single European Act, is a positive step forward.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I take my hon. Friend's point about the free movement of people, but what will happen if they do not keep moving and all want to settle down and they gravitate to those countries where the benefits are most attractive? Those countries will have to cope financially. That is a practical effect of the free movement of people. What does my hon. Friend think that we can do about that?

Mr. Davies: I know that my hon. Friend shares with me a commitment to free market principles, so surely in the future it is right that people should be able to move. Market principles and constraints will operate so that if everyone wants to install himself in, say, London or Paris, rents will rise and wages will fall because the supply of labour will be greater than demand and people will move away again. Therefore, the natural economic mechanism will work towards equilibrium, even if we never finally achieve it. My hon. Friend should be satisfied by that response as I know she shares my faith in the economic mechanism.
The second thing that struck me about the debate was the suggestion that was almost explicit in the speech by the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and was implicit in a number of interventions by Conservative Members, that somehow the establishment of the principle of the free movement of persons in the European Community would compromise the national sovereignty of member states. I thought that that was an extraordinary suggestion.
After all, before 1914 we had free movement of persons in western Europe. One could go to Victoria station and buy a ticket to Paris, Rome, Vienna or Berlin and travel to those places without any bureaucratic let or hindrance and without showing any passport or visa. One can make many comments about the world of pre-1914 Europe, but one thing from which it surely did not suffer was a lack of national sovereignty because we ended up with an appalling fractricidal conflict which was, I suppose, the ultimate proof of national sovereignty.
We need not feel that there is any conflict between the principle of national sovereignty and the free movement of persons. Surely the re-establishment of the free movement that was enjoyed in the civilised world before 1914 is a considerable advance. Thank goodness we can now look forward to it after the unhappy interval of most of the 20th century.
It is also more than a little naive of hon. Members, most of them Conservative, to believe that frontier controls are an effective way of barring the entry of illegal immigrants or criminals, including terrorists. So many millions of people cross internal frontiers in the Community every day that it would be impossible for immigration officers at those frontiers to examine microscopically every passport presented to them and ask the many questions necessary to make the controls effective. The only answer is to have better internal controls, and I hope we shall have them. We must vet social security registers and have more checks on employers suspected of employing illegal immigrant labour.
If we are to make a reality of the free movement of people in the Community—a desirable objective which every humane person supports—we must also strengthen controls on the external frontiers of the Community. I am not satisfied that we should leave it to, say, a Greek immigration officer on the Thracian frontier with Turkey to decide who shall and shall not come into the Community and thereby acquire the right to install himself or herself in Lincolnshire. A successful regime of free movement must be based on the same high standard of control of immigration applying at all external frontiers.

Sir Teddy Taylor: How?

Mr. Davies: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention, albeit sedentary, because it gives me the opportunity to come to my final point, which is that we need a mixed-man force of immigration officers who will be responsible for common external frontiers. They should be recruited from all the Community countries and be in the employ of the Community. That will ensure that the same criteria for admission are applied to the same standard and with the same effectiveness throughout the Community.

Mr. David Trimble: This is the first time I have spoken on the Bill and on the treaty on European union, so at the outset I express my appreciation to the British Management Data Foundation Ltd., which was responsible for producing consolidated text without which I would have been in the same difficulty as the Home Secretary, who confessed his problems in coping with the legislation. Like him, I cannot claim to have read and fully digested the entire text, but without the document we would have been floundering.
There has been much discussion about the extent to which decisions on immigration policy would be subject to unanimity or qualified majority and the extent to which the competency of the Community could be extended to cover other matters. Assurances have been given by the Home Secretary and others about there being a double lock on those matters, so that we need not be concerned about whether there are adequate safeguards for national sovereignty and the authority of the British Parliament.
I intervened yesterday to point out that part of the difficulty stemmed from the fact that we did not have in the United Kingdom constitution an adequate procedure for dealing with those issues. We do not have an adequate ratification procedure. What in substance we are doing in these proceedings is ratifying the treaty on European union. We are doing that not by considering the treaty but by debating a short measure of two clauses. To smuggle in the substantive provisions of the treaty on European union, we must go through the elaborate procedure of tabling hundreds of amendments, some of which, according to our procedure, are selected and others are not.
In that context, I agreed with a point of order raised by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) about the difficulty in following the procedure. Life would be easier and our proceedings would be more coherent if we adopted the sort of procedure followed by other member states by which the treaty is embodied in legislation. Legislators can then discuss the provisions of the treaty in a coherent way.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman is dealing with an important point. Titles I, V, VI and VII of the treaty would be dealt with by the prerogative and would not necessarily be susceptible to a Bill. Does he agree that if the Government really believed in Parliament and had put down titles II, III, IV and perhaps part of title VI as schedules to the measure, we could have tabled amendments to those schedules, which would have been the text of the treaty, presenting us with a fair, open and democratic way of conducting these affairs?

Mr. Trimble: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and it would be opportune if, at an appropriate point in the near future, the House considered ways to ensure that we have more effective control not only over treaties but over the


issues flowing from them. The hon. Gentleman made an important point in referring to the use of the royal prerogative.
Many Community provisions are operated through the European Council. Governments are represented on that body—they may act by unanimity or qualified majority —and we are assured that, because of the presence of Her Majesty's Government, the national interests of the United Kingdom are protected. But we in Parliament will not have an opportunity to deal with many issues because they can be brought into force with the use of the royal prerogative or existing statutory powers. Only when fresh legislation is required can we have any effective control over what is proposed.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Given that we are now on our ninth day and are looking forward to several months of Committee stage, remembering that we started it all many months ago—in other words, we shall spend more time debating the Bill than any other legislature in the Community—may I ask the hon. Gentleman to say, given that he is not satisfied with the degree of attention that it is receiving in the British Parliament, how long would satisfy his needs?

Mr. Trimble: It is a question not of time but of the way in which we are dealing with it. As I said at the outset, we are not proceeding in a coherent manner. We are compelled by our procedures and by the way in which the Bill was drafted to proceed in a crab-like manner, a subject to which I shall return, if the rules of order permit me to deal with the issue.
I was glad yesterday to hear the Home Secretary express surprise that certain documents relating to the convention on frontiers had not been lodged in the Library. He promised to make them available and I am glad that he has done that. If we are to deal effectively with matters arising under the treaty—immigration, security, policing, justice and so on—we must examine the way in which information comes to us, in particular ensuring that it is readily accessible.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: There are many aspects of immigration and refugee policy which are, in effect, decided elsewhere by the British Government through the Trevi group and other ad hoc meetings and which become Government policy because of the way in which immigration law is now drafted, which gives almost complete power to the Home Secretary. The hon. Member is pointing to a very pertinent example of a long-term and serious problem with immigration law which will be worse if the Bill goes through.

Mr. Trimble: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not sure that I fully agree with it. However, I certainly agree about the unsatisfactory way in which the Trevi group has operated and I take his point about our Government's policy being decided in those discussions and, consequently, not fully debated here. Perhaps, as a result of those proceedings, we shall move into a slightly better phase and reform our procedures. The fact that the treaty on European union is putting ad hoc arrangements with Trevi on a more formal footing and providing a better basis for them to proceed may give this House, if it changes and adapts its procedures, the opportunity to have some involvement in matters that have hitherto been dealt with

through Trevi and other ad hoc groups. So there might be some occasion for improvement, if we so decide, if we address ourselves, as I think we must, to the issue of dealing with policy matters, and if the treaty goes ahead. It is essential for the House to get to grips with the issue.
That was a comment on our discussions yesterday. Our problems would be eased if we had a proper application procedure.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Member is making an extremely thoughtful contribution to the debate on this series of amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) talked about the number of hours that the House will debate the Committee stage of the Bill. Is not one problem that the Government cannot afford to allow one amendment to succeed? All the discussions on the Bill, however valuable, can achieve nothing because the Government of this country have agreed to something before it has come to Parliament. Should it not have been the case—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must surely know that that is a procedural point and nothing to do with the amendment. Mr. David Trimble—

Mr. Winterton: If the hon. Member will allow me to intervene again, I will seek to bring my intervention within order, Mr. Lofthouse. We are dealing with justice, law and order, security and asylum. These are all matters which create tremendous interest in this House and about which most Members feel very strongly. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who led or who was certainly involved with the Greater London council for many years, made a very emotional and impassioned speech. We cannot improve this Bill without the Bill being destroyed. That is the point I am trying to make, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman.

The First Deputy Chairman: I hope that the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will not reply to the procedural point but will stick to the amendment.

Mr. Trimble: I eschew the temptation to reply to that very valuable and interesting intervention. The hon. Member has a fair idea of my views on the matter, but I was reflecting on the difficulties arising because we do not have a procedure for ratification.
Dealing with the relationship between articles 100c and K.9, which was discussed at some length yesterday, another point that occurs to me is that with this procedure, as with so many things in connection with the European Community, we are dealing with a ratchet effect. The Home Secretary said that we do not have to worry, because there will have to be a unanimous decision before various matters move from unanimity to qualified majority. That is all right up to a point, but there only has to be one decision and it is over the dam and never comes back. We only have to have a Minister or a different Government who decide to adopt a different policy and it goes over the dam and moves from unanimity to qualified majority, and it never comes back. That is part of the problem.
I remember many occasions on which the former right hon. Member for Finchley, Baroness Thatcher, used to complain about the attitude within the British body politic about socialism and the ratchet effect. She was determined


to unwind that, and succeeded. Unfortunately, it will take a considerable effort to unwind the ratchet effect that is operating here.
Hon. Members have pointed out that much of what we are dealing with here is related to free movement of people and passport and border control provisions. They flowed from the basic concept of the free movement of persons which was written into the original treaty of Rome and was one of its central provisions. If free movement is to be implemented, it produces a common travel area within the entire Community. It is extending to the entire Community the common travel area that exists within the British Isles. Perhaps that is not a very good point or a helpful or encouraging analogy, but basically that is what it is doing.
When people were expressing concern about whether extension of the common travel area would have implications for the powers under the prevention of terrorism Act or exclusion orders to deal with terrorism, the Home Secretary offered reassurance. I should like him to look more closely at that reassurance. He was referring us to paragraph 3 of article 48 of the treaties, which says:
It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health:".
At first sight, that seems to preserve measures such as the prevention of terrorism Act because they come under public security, but paragraph 3 of article 48 is under the heading "Workers" and paragraph 1 of the article is about freedom of movement for workers which shall be secured, and so on. Article 8a, which is about citizenship, will be discussed later. It says:
Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory …".
There may be a difference of meaning between citizen and worker and I should like the Minister who is to reply to consider that. Am I right in suggesting that the power to have limitation on public security grounds operates only with regard to movement of workers and not with regard to the movement of people who are not workers? I hope that I am not right in that supposition, and I hope that it is possible to have restrictions on public security grounds generally, because they are extremely necessary and desirable.
If we move into this new era of freedom of movement and a common travel area within the Community, it also follows, as has already been said, that controls designed to prevent crime and terrorism will have to switch from borders to operate internally. If we are to enable those to operate effectively internally, it is no good requiring every citizen to carry a passport at all times, to enable them to establish their identity. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who was opposing the suggestion, said that an inevitable corollary of adoption of the travel area will be a requirement for identity cards and a power for the police to be able to stop people and require them to establish their identity. I agree with her that if we go down this road we shall go to that conclusion. She did not like that conclusion, but I have no problem with it. I think that it would be desirable and necessary, in order to have some effective control on drugs and terrorism, but it is only a small point.
The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies) said that other steps would have to be taken to ensure that checks were made within member states. He

pointed out, for instance, that checks would be necessary to ensure that people were not employing immigrant workers. That is an excellent idea; I hope that, at the same time, the authorities will check that employees are not "doing the double".
This group of amendments is headed "Justice and Home: Frontiers, Visas, Asylum". I want to concentrate not on the detail of article 1000c, as most hon. Members have, but on article K.1, and, in particular, paragraphs 7 and 9. I trust that I am right in thinking that I shall remain in order in so doing: I tried to track down all the amendments listed under that heading, but that proved very difficult.
Article K, and indeed title VI as a whole, set out provisions for
Co-operation in the fields of justice and home affairs.
The concept of co-operation is fine in theory, and, were they to be implemented effectively, the provisions in paragraph 7 of article K.1, which refers to
judicial co-operation in criminal matters".
and in paragraph 9 of that article, which refers to
police co-operation for the purposes of preventing and combating terrorism",
would be excellent. I do not want my comments to be misinterpreted: I do not want it to be thought that I consider co-operation anything other than necessary and desirable. The effectiveness of co-operation, however—I refer to intergovernmental co-operation, under article K —depends crucially on the integrity of the Governments of member states, and on their willingness to co-operate.
I cannot discuss police co-operation in the handling of terrorism without mentioning the serious terrorist problem that exists within the Community. Co-operation is supposed to deal with that, but we must ask whether the necessary integrity exists. Progress will depend on a recognition by member states that they have a common interest, and should pull together. It ought to be incompatible with the existence of a European Community for one member state to have a territorial claim against another; it should be even more incompatible with the existence of such a Community for one member state with a territorial claim against another to pursue that claim actively.
Claims that are merely historical survivals, as it were, may not cause much of a problem. Within the British Isles, however, a member state has a territorial claim against another, and is actively pursuing that claim in terms of diplomacy and discussion. During the recent inter-party talks on Northern Ireland, we discovered that the Irish Government, far from eschewing their territorial claim, were using the talks to advance it. That is one of the reasons for the foundering of those talks.
Hon. Members who watched the BBC2 programme "Timewatch" last night will have noted that, in the recent past, the Irish Government even contemplated advancing their territorial claim by means of armed aggression: indeed, they put in train the necessary steps for a form of proxy warfare whereby they would support and assist a terrorist organisation. Moreover, they contemplated the further step of actual invasion. The programme referred to a planned invasion of the spring of 1970, but did not deal with the planned invasion of August 1969. I know that the programme makers gathered material relating to that invasion; I am surprised that no mention was made of it.
I observe some puzzlement on the Conservative Benches. I should be delighted to be able to go into the


matter in detail, but I shall not do so, Mr. Lofthouse: we are now dealing with the general principles of the treaty. My basic point is that co-operation on matters relating to security and terrorism depends on the existence of the trust and integrity that are so sadly absent now.
When I mentioned the matter in business questions this afternoon, the Leader of the House said that we should focus on the present co-operation. My colleagues and I believe that the present co-operation is a sham: we could demonstrate that time and again by referring to the tremendous incidence of cross-border-related terrorism, and to the conspicuous inability of the Irish army and police to prevent such crimes—or, except very rarely, even to detain those involved.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: For the benefit of the many hon. Members who have been in the House for some years, and have often debated matters relating to security in Northern Ireland, will the hon. Gentleman tell us whether he believes that the treaty's ratification—and the enactment of the Bill—could be disadvantageous to the improvement of security for the people of Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom?
I feel that that is the crux of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. Perhaps, by implication, he has said it; but he has not spelt it out clearly. I hope that he will do so, because I believe that terrorism may flourish even more if the Bill is enacted, and that the people of Northern I reland will be placed at a severe disadvantage.

Mr. Trimble: In so far as controls on movement within the Community are diminished, there is a real prospect of that. It will be easier for terrorists to move from one part of the Community to another. That has already happened in regard to Provisional IRA terrorist operations on the continental land mass: for instance, a terrorist cell that appeared to be based in Holland proved to be active in Belgium and western Germany, and to be moving easily between frontiers. Interestingly, they were the frontiers of the countries involved in the Schengen agreement—the countries that have gone furthest in achieving the necessary co-operation in dealing with cross-border matters. They allow a degree of what might be called hot pursuit; in some areas, joint patrols operate. Yet the terrorists were clearly exploiting the borders.
Greater freedom of movement will mean greater danger, and will lead to a need for further safeguards. I mentioned those earlier when I spoke of the need for identity cards. If we do not consider such matters, the position will worsen. Moreover, we may appear to endorse the Government's current belief that co-operation exists. Under article K, a new procedure will be established, a committee of officials will be appointed to consider the issues involved, and it may become easier for Ministers to lull themselves—or deceive themselves—into thinking that co-operation exists where, in practice, it does not. That is already happening, to an extent, in relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Irish Republic. Her Majesty's Government think that there is co-operation; but that co-operation is strictly limited and not entirely sincere. The enactment of the legislation will provide further opportunities to deceive an Administration who have already proved remarkably gullible.
As well as dealing with police co-operation on terrorism, article K refers to judicial co-operation. That, too, would be highly desirable if it were effective. I hope that the Minister will give us a progress report on what is happening in the Community.
The European convention on the suppression of terrorism, which was adopted many years ago, provides for extradition in certain circumstances. I understand that discussions about new extradition arrangments are taking place in Europe. I should be interested to know what is happening on that front. What are the current plans and proposals with regard to judicial co-operation relating to criminal matters? The European convention on the suppression of terrorism has not been a success. There are far too many loopholes in article 1, and unfortunately the provisions in article 2, which apply it to almost any offence, have not been implemented.
There is a paradox in regard to extradition to which I should like to refer briefly. If we are to have European union, with free movement, we ought to adopt measures such as those that were adopted in the middle of the 19th century in the British empire. In that case, the assumption was that Her Majesty's courts in any jurisdiction, being the courts of Her Majesty, were worthy of utter and implicit faith. In the middle of the 19th century there was introduced the procedure referred to as backing of warrants. A warrant in respect of a fugitive from one jurisdiction was automatically backed in another jurisdiction. There was no inquiry into the grounds on which the warrant had been issued; the courts were all Her Majesty's courts. Whether the incident involved a colony or the home country, the warrant was effective. That is how matters should be in a union.
One might expect that the courts in one jurisdiction within a European union would treat as valid all the actions of the courts in another jurisdiction in that union. That would represent movement in the direction of the backing of warrants.
In fact, in respect of extradition matters, we are moving in the opposite direction. Into our backing of warrants, the Government—at the behest of the Irish Government, I think—are introducing more pure extradition procedures by way of a speciality rule. It may be—who knows?—that they will move to a prima facie rule. In the area of judicial co-operation, it is curious that, in respect of these matters, we are moving in the direction opposite to that in which we should be moving.
I finish by making a simple point: while co-operation is useful, we should not be blinded to the fact that we shall have to do the job ourselves. There ought to be co-operation in respect of security, terrorism and judicial matters, but we ought not to lull ourselves into the belief that co-operation in itself will do the job.
The Government are not prepared to accept the European Commission's view with regard to immigration provisions. They insist on retaining some measure of control within the United Kingdom, even if only by way of requiring people to produce passports briefly. Implicit in that approach is that the Government do not intend to rely on the decisions of officials in Germany or Greece or Italy or Spain and that they want to reserve the right to make decisions on their own. It is right that they should do so, and the same approach should be adopted to co-operation


in respect of terrorism and justice. By all means, let us have co-operation, but let us not believe that that in itself is sufficient. It will still be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to take care of their citizens' basic right to live free from terrorism and to enjoy a fully effective judicial system.

Mr. David Lidington: Before hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), I felt that the Committee was in danger of forgetting the very real value to British people, and indeed to the people of other countries in the European Community, of much closer co-operation in dealing with crime of all sorts. The hon. Gentleman has done us a favour by reminding us of that fact.
At a time when terrorists and drug traffickers do not respect national frontiers, when technology enables money to be transferred from country to country and from continent to continent at the flick of a switch on a computer terminal, it is clearly sensible to try to strengthen methods and institutions of international co-operation against crime.
The question that has divided hon. Members is the extent to which the provisions of the treaty are likely to be effective. Perhaps more significant—a great deal of time has been spent on this point—is whether the constitutional framework provided in the Maastricht treaty and in this Bill contains adequate safeguards for British national interests, adequate controls for the Parliament and Government of this country in respect of crucial matters of policy.
I am not completely uncritical of various aspects of the Maastricht treaty. It is a compromise, and it contains some provisions that I would rather not see there. However, I am genuinely suprised at the strength and passion of the criticism that some of my hon. Friends have levelled at those aspects—in particular, article K. Article K and the more general provisions intended to strengthen cooperation against crime and to control immigration are of positive value to the people of the United Kingdom.
I should like to deal first with a criticism that was expressed most strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) but was echoed by several other hon. Friends—that the United Kingdom risks being invaded by hordes of foreigners and that, under this treaty, we shall surrender our right to lay down immigration rules. Certainly there is a problem about immigration control, but it arises from the Single European Act and from the differing interpretations of it by the Government of the United Kingdom and the European Commission, rather than from the treaty. I echo what several of my hon. Friends have said about the importance to this country of the preservation of good race relations and strong and effective control of immigration. However, even if the Maastricht treaty were rejected by the British Parliament, that dispute—that potential challenge to our control over immigration—would remain. It does not matter whether the treaty is accepted or rejected so far as that dilemma, that potential for argument and dispute, is concerned. It derives from the Single European Act, and it will remain.

Mr. Marlow: We all want firm and effective immigration policies. With regard to Article K.1(6) to (9),

we are all in favour of co-operation with other European countries. However, the treaty would enshrine in legislation the means whereby competence in respect of these policies could be transferred from this country and from this House to European institutions. We want co-operation, but we are concerned about the loss of control and the inability ever to retrieve it.

Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend echoes the substance of an intervention that he made earlier. The problem of the irreversibility of a decision to cede a particular aspect of policy to Community competence is not unique to the Maastricht treaty. It is something that is inherent in membership of the European Community itself.
If my hon. Friend and those who take his part on this point wish to say that the United Kingdom should withdraw from the European Community, that is a logical, coherent position to take. But if they believe that the advantage lies with the United Kingdom remaining a member of the EC, they must accept that measures ceded to Community decision-taking can only then be reversed either by agreement or by the very drastic step of seeking to bring into question our very membership.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend not accept that some of us who have been here almost from the beginning of the European saga—I refer particularly to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore)—see this Maastricht treaty as another turn or two on the ratchet, thus deepening the concern which we on both sides of the House already feel about the irreversibility of what is happening? Is it not therefore right that this concern should be spelled out and that those of us who believe that Europe should be developing in a different direction should have our say in the House?

Mr. Lidington: It is quite right that my hon. Friend and others who share his views should have their say, and they have been given ample opportunity to contribute in their particular and distinctive manner on the several days that the Committee has sat.
I go along with my hon. Friend to this extent. I too believe that we should seriously question the direction in which, it sometimes seems, the European Community is inexorably developing. I sympathise with those hon. Members who have looked back at the Single European Act and who feel that, whereas they signed up for a deal and were told that there were limits to Community competence, the goalposts have now been changed and we have gone back on what had apparently been firmly agreed.
I give strong support to article K and to the other intergovernmental pillars which form part of this treaty, because, for the first time in treaty form, they offer an alternative model of European co-operation, one which I think is more in the interests of the people of this country than the classic federalist model which is honestly and openly espoused by, for example, Mr. Delors, Mr. Kohl and even one or two hon. Members on the Government Benches.

7 pm

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend said that, because I and some other hon. Members were concerned about transferring competence over these issues to European


Community institutions, we were therefore against Community institutions having any competence whatever and we wanted to leave the Community. That is not so.
There are areas in which it is right for Community institutions to have the proper competence, but why does my hon. Friend think it necessary that potential competence with, in some respects, minimal parliamentary scope for intervention, on these sensitive issues should be passed by the House through this treaty to European institutions?

Mr. Lidington: As other hon. Members have said, the safeguards which are provided within article K are quite adequate to preserve the rights of the British Parliament and the British people to determine these matters. I want us now to use the intergovernmental framework which this treaty establishes, get it working and show our partners in the European Community that there is an alternative path which works with the grain of national sentiment and national tradition, and which we can set up in opposition to the federal path which others would prefer us to follow.
Then, when we reach the discussions scheduled for 1996 or thereabouts, we shall have a working model of intergovernmental co-operation which we can point to as a success, rather than being driven only into saying no to proposals which others put before us.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Gentleman refers to what I paraphrase as a satisfactory mechanism of parliamentary consent. Is he referring to the "respective constitutional requirements" of article K.9? If so, what does he think those requirements should be? Does he agree with new clause 12, which spells them out as an Act of Parliament? If not, why not?

Mr. Lidington: That is certainly the clause to which I was alluding. I believe that the respective constitutional requirements should be Acts of Parliament where a change in British domestic law is required, as we are doing with the treaty and as we have done in respect of other international conventions, freely negotiated by British Governments, in judicial and police co-operation—where we have negotiated conventions on extradition and on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, and they have been translated into British domestic law through Acts of Parliament, going through all their stages in both Houses.
I hope that, over the next 10 to 12 years, we can move away from the federal model of Europe towards one which is more confederal, under which we escape this idea of being bound on the travelator to some predetermined destination, and instead can co-operate, one country with another, ceding limited and defined areas of policy, like the single market, for decision on a supranational basis, but around that having a whole gamut of different areas and systems of co-operation to suit the particular needs of various groups of countries which are yet all members of one European union.
Intergovernmental institutions for co-operation against crime and against illegal immigration will form an important part of that Europe of variable geometry which I wish to move towards. I hope that we can ratify this treaty quickly and get on with the task of building intergovernmental co-operation because that, more than anything else, will put the United Kingdom in the strongest possible position when we approach the next round of EC negotiations.

Mr. Madden: This is the first time that I have sought to speak in the debates of the Committee. Last night, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), in a most eloquent and thoughtful speech, asked a number of questions, to which so far he has received no answer. I hope that the Home Secretary will seek the leave of the Committee to intervene again so that he can give full replies to the questions asked by my right hon. Friend.
For instance, will it be possible for EC nationals coming to the United Kingdom under the free movement arrangements to establish a business without any evidence of funds? Will it be possible for them to apply for local authority housing? My right hon. Friend asked a number of other questions and, before the Government seek to move the closure of the debate, I hope that we will receive answers to them. I shall be asking the Home Secretary a number of other questions, to which I hope we shall receive answers tonight.
Underlying this debate is the concern of many of us about the inbuilt unfairness, racial discrimination and other difficulties which non-EC nationals will experience in seeking to exercise their right to free movement, and the difficulties, racial discrimination and problems that non-EC nationals wishing to come to the European Community, including the United Kingdom, will experience.
Under the free movement arrangements, members of the family of an EC national are able to come to this country, including the person's spouse, their children under 21, their other children and grandchildren if still dependent, and their dependent parents, grandparents and great grandparents.
Many of us deal daily with the difficulties of many of our constituents in seeking to obtain permission for their spouses and dependent children to come to this country. Those difficulties are extremely protracted, and it often takes years to secure permission for spouses and dependent children to come to the United Kingdom. Our constituents in that position are very envious indeed of the extensive rights that are being given to EC nationals as far as dependent relatives are concerned.
I want also to point to the difficulties which the Government have in recent months put in the way of dependants of former detainees in the former Yugoslav states wishing to come to this country. Yesterday, I received a reply from the Under-Secretary to a parliamentary question, which reads as follows:
My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has, however, decided that close dependants of the 1,000 former detainees will be allowed to join them for the duration of their stay. Generally, close dependants are regarded as the spouse and children under 18. However, in respect of the former detainees, we are also prepared to consider applications for visas from fully dependent and unmarried daughters over 18 and under 21, from elderly or sick parents, and from other relatives living in the most exceptional compelling compassionate circumstances.
The available information on other dependants of asylum applicants is that since the introduction of the visa requirements for nationals of certain parts of former Yugoslavia on 6 November 1992 about 20 people from the former Yugoslavia have been granted entry clearance to join relatives in the asylum-related cases.
I repeat, just 20.
In addition, under the arrangements I announced to the House on 30 November 1992, 130 close dependants of the


former detainees have so far been granted clearance to come to the United Kingdom. Sixty five applications by more distant relatives have been refused.
Sixty-five have been refused, and I understand that they include elderly grandparents. It is shameful that the Government, with the situation in Bosnia, about which we all know and which has been referred to during the course of the debate in the Committee, should be allowing only such a small number of very close dependants to come here. I believe that this is a matter which the Home Secretary should reconsider urgently.

Mr. Corbyn: I am very glad that my hon. Friend is drawing attention to this situation. Will he confirm that the number of asylum seekers coming from the former Yugoslavia to this country is the lowest going to any European country, and that the imposition of the visa requirement has made it virtually impossible for any to come, other than those listed by the Home Secretary in his statement at that time?

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I should be very grateful if the Home Secretary would intervene at some stage to tell us how many former detainees from the former Yugoslavia, particularly Bosnia, have to date been received in the United Kingdom. Why is he refusing to allow sons of former detainees to come here? It seems to me to be blatant discrimination to refuse to allow male children to come to this country. Is it a mistake, or is it the considered policy of Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman knows that he and I share very little territory with regard to immigration. However, he can make the speech that he is making now, he can hope that there will be a change of Government and that he will be able to make such speeches, and he can hope that there may be the kind of immigration policy that he would wish. He may wish very much to change our asylum and immigration rules, and he may be able to do that.
The hon. Gentleman will remember that we recognised Bosnia and Croatia; we did not want to, but it was done by unanimity because of pressures within the Community. Through the same sort of pressures, we could unanimously decide to transfer asylum and immigration policy to European institutions. It would come back here for a vote late at night to be ratified, and that would be it. Before there is a Labour Government, the Conservative Government could have done all that, transferred all those powers. I put it to him that this is of massive significance, and something that he should tell all his hon. Friends.

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This is a very long intervention.

Mr. Madden: Nevertheless, I agree with the substance of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I remember that visas for Bosnia were introduced only days after the Second Reading of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. Not a word was said by the Home Secretary during the course of that debate about the fact that three days later he was going to introduce visas for Bosnia. That was a shameful contempt of the House of Commons and of all hon. Members.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: In response to the points which the hon. Gentleman made, on top of the 40,000 residents of the former Yugoslavia who had come here before I introduced visas, we have undertaken to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to take 1,000 former detainees, plus their dependants—about 4,000 in all. The first groups have arrived, and the second group is arriving imminently, dependent upon transport being able to get them out of Croatia, where they are making their way. We are certainly undertaking to admit close relatives of those persons.
So that the hon. Gentleman is not misled by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), if we pass this Bill and ratify this treaty, the powers of the House and the Government to determine those matters will not be affected by one iota. Under the Maastricht treaty, matters of asylum are not brought within Community competence. So the hon. Gentleman can happily keep on making these points, but I hope that he will concede that so far we have made a more generous response than any other state in Europe to the request from the UNHCR to take former detainees from the former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Madden: I am grateful to the Home Secretary, but can he say how many have so far been received and how many are included in the second group to which he has just referred? Is the exclusion of sons of former detainees, who I would think are the closest relatives in most people's terms, a considered and deliberate decision of the Government, or is it simply a mistake in the written reply that I have received?

Mr. Clarke: We have so far received about 150 former detainees in this country, which is the total that the UNHCR and the International Red Cross have referred to us. We are expecting them to take up our offer in full, and, as I say, we are waiting for the second group. We are admitting their close relatives, which usually means spouses and children below the age of 18. We are looking at applications for the admission of relatives and deciding each case on its merits.
Having taken in refugees and their immediate relatives, we cannot accede to what the hon. Gentleman seems to want, and agree that elderly parents, brothers and adult children should all automatically be able to come as well. If we did, our offer of 4,000 people, or thereabouts, on top of the 40,000 would obviously be rapidly magnified.

Mr. Madden: I assume from that that the Home Secretary is affirming that the decision to refuse male children up to the age of 18 is a deliberate and considered decision of the Government.

Mr. Clarke: We are normally admitting children under 18. If the hon. Gentleman knows of a case in which he believes we have refused a child the right to rejoin the parents, I and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will be happy to look at it. Normally, we are admitting spouses and children under the age of 18. We are looking at all these applications on their merits. We cannot undertake to take in what I might call a wider family of people who have some relationship to those we have admitted but who are in fact wholly independent adults living somewhere in former Yugoslavia.

Mr. Madden: The answer to the written question to which I referred will certainly need to be clarified in the


light of the Home Secretary's reply. Nevertheless, it would be considered compassionate and understanding if "close relatives" were taken to mean spouses, children of both sexes up to 18, parents and grandparents. I should have thought that that would be a more sensible approach for the Government to adopt.

Mr. Clarke: I said that we consider cases on their merits. We are prepared to contemplate dependants of one kind or another. The hon. Gentleman's approach to immigration policy is sometimes quite extraordinary. If under the offer that we have made we admit a Bosnian Muslim who has been a detainee in a Serbian camp, we would obviously expect to admit his wife and children, but why should a grandparent who presumably lives in some other part of former Yugoslavia—for example, in Slovenia where there is not and has not been a war—also automatically qualify to come here as a refugee?
The hon. Gentleman cannot make sweeping assertions to the effect that the grandfather of every refugee we admit should also be admitted. As he always uses such amazing language to express his strictures on our immigration policy, it is not as outrageous as he suggests that we ask where the grandfather has been living and why he wants to come here.

Mr. Madden: I assume that many of the Bosnian detainees who have been admitted but whose close relatives are being refused admission will look in wonderment at the provisions to which I previously referred and under which very large numbers of relatives of EC nationals can come here with the greatest of ease, without the need for visas or checks. It creates a feeling of resentment, discrimination and unfairness.

Mr. Marlow: I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary would not want to mislead the Committee or the hon. Gentleman. He said that immigration and asylum issues are not affected by the Bill. Will the hon. Gentleman draw to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend article K.3 (2) which states that, on the initiative of the Commission, the Council can take joint action with regard to article K.1 (1) to (6), which includes asylum policy and immigration? I am afraid that my right hon. and learned Friend was wrong.

Mr. Madden: The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) has made that point before. I hope that it may be sinking in with the Home Secretary.

Mr. Corbyn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on persuading the Home Secretary to get to his feet to answer questions on asylum and immigration—something that very few of us have been able to do. In confirming that the Council of Ministers would have the right to extend its jurisdiction to immigration and asylum policy, will he reflect that, whether decisions are taken unanimously or through majority voting, they are often taken on linked motives? For example, Croatia was recognised only under enormous pressure from the German Government.
In my hon. Friend's opinion, was it or was it not connected to the survival of the exchange rate of the pound and the deutschmark and to many other considerations? Does he not think that there are grave dangers in that process?

Mr. Madden: Not for the first time, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who has made that point—as I have—

throughout the Committee stage of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill. I am sorry if I irritate the Home Secretary from time to time with the way in which I seek to defend the interests of my constituents, but it is a cross that I am afraid he will have to continue to bear.
The determination of citizenship, which is the basis of today's debate, is a matter to be decided by each member state. Of course, it is clear that, for the United Kingdom, European Community nationals are British citizens, British subjects under the British Nationality Act 1981 who have a right of abode, and British dependent territory citizens who have that status by virtue of a connection with Gibraltar.
Various statements have been made in these debates about Hong Kong citizens and those of other former dependent territories. A contrast has been noted between the way in which France treats, for instance, the citizens of Guadeloupe and Martinique and Portugal treats the citizens of Macau. It is entirely a matter for the French and Portuguese to decide that the citizens of those territories are assumed to be EC nationals of those member states.
Only this week, I was in conversation with a number of representatives from Hong Kong who came to talk to hon. Members. They said that they would like to be treated by the United Kingdom in the way that the French are treating the citizens of Macau.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: The Portuguese.

Mr. Madden: Sorry—in the way that the Portuguese are treating the citizens of Macau. Such a view leads to justice and equality. The representatives also said that, last year,
60,000 Hong Kong citizens emigrated from—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I know that the debate is fairly wide, but the hon. Gentleman is trespassing into a group of amendments that we have not yet considered. I ask him to deal more closely with the subject now under consideration.

Mr. Madden: Indeed I shall, by saying that I hope that the Government will deal with the continuing problems in Hong Kong and take a more relaxed attitude to citizens than they have done hitherto.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I do not wish to question your ruling, Dame Janet, but may I say that, after 1997, the future of the people of Hong Kong will be especially relevant in terms of asylum. Large numbers of former dependent citizens of the United Kingdom, when they become a part of China although with special status, might claim asylum and seek to come to the United Kingdom. As he is talking about Hong Kong, will the hon. Gentleman refer specifically to asylum?

Mr. Madden: Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right. Of course, it is not inconceivable that, after 1997, a majority of states could require the imposition of visas. Bearing in mind the brave attempts of Mr. Patten to increase democracy in Hong Kong, the Government might say that they did not wish to, but were being forced to accept the imposition of visas on the citizens of Hong Kong by a majority of EC member states.
That is a graphic illustration of the difficulties that we could encounter in the foreseeable future, and it shows the ease with which the Government might be able to distance themselves from an extremely embarrassing situation by


blaming the provisions of the Bill and a majority vote of EC states. They could say that they had to acquiesce to the imposition of visas on the citizens of Hong Kong.
In a written reply last December, the Home Secretary said:
I shall be considering what further changes might be made in the course of 1993 to United Kingdom immigration control arrangements, vis-a-vis other member states of the European Community, in the furtherance of our policy of reducing checks on EC nationals to the minimum level compatible with the retention of effective immigration control of third-country nationals together with adequate safeguards against the entry of terrorists and other serious criminals." —[Official Report, 17 December 1992; Vol 216, c. 446.]
That was in the context of the draft convention on the crossing of external frontiers. When the Home Secretary was interviewed by The Guardian, he seemed aghast and astonished, and did not know whether hon. Members had even seen that document, let alone considered it. After an embarrassing hoo-hah, the document has at last been placed in the Library, as we heard earlier in the debate.

The summary of the document is most interesting: Article 6: establishes the system for the application for controls at airports.
Article 7: sets out the conditions of entry to member states in respect of short stays.
Article 8: enables non-EC nationals who are lawfully resident in the European Community, to make a short visit or transit another member state without having to obtain a visa.
Article 9: Confirms that admission for stays in excess of three months is subject to national legislation.
Articles 10–13: provide for the establishment of a computerised common list of inadmissable and non-EC nationals and lay down principles for the treatment of non-EC nationals who do not meet the criteria for entry …
Articles 15 and 16: provide for the removal of illegal entrants and overstayers.
Article 17: confirms the member states' commitment to establish a harmonised visa policy.
Articles 18–25: provide for member states to mutually recognise each others' short stay visas and, in the longer term, for the introduction of—[Interruption.]

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. There is too much noise. The hon. Gentleman is giving a long recitation; we hope to hear a speech rather than a summary of a complete document.

Mr. Madden: I am referring to the draft convention, Dame Janet, which deals directly with the subject matter of the debate. There seems to be some doubt and uncertainty about the extent of the provisions that we are debating, and I am informing the House about the extent of the draft convention. I shall soon finish.
Articles 18–25: provide for member states to mutually recognise each other's short stay visas and, in the longer term, for the introduction of a uniform visa valid for travel throughout the European Community.
I shall not complete the account of the rest of the articles, but I should be grateful if the Home Secretary would tell us when he believes that the convention will he agreed. I am grateful to the Library for producing research paper 93/7, page 12 of which says:
Primary legislation would probably be needed to enable the UK to comply with certain of its provisions. The Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill 1992–1993 provides that passengers in transit need visas, and additional powers may be needed to enable air transfer passengers not seeking entry to the UK to be examined and granted leave. It would be necessary to adjust the legislation or rules as follows: … to

allow for short stays of three months as defined in the Convention. At present, the rules allow a maximum stay of 6 months".
Will the Home Secretary break the habit of a lifetime and tell the Committee clearly whether he intends to reduce the period for which visitors to the United Kingdom are allowed to remain here from six months to three months this year? That is a matter of considerable concern, because the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill has abolished the right of appeal for people refused a visit to the United Kingdom. If the maximum period of stay were reduced from six months to three months, that would compound the sense of anger, injury and resentment already caused.
If the Home Secretary would intervene and tell the Committee clearly one way or the other, that would be much appreciated by thousands of my constituents who are anxious not only about the Government's past actions on immigration policy in general and on visitors in particular, but about their future actions.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is not talking about a piece of Community legislation within Community competence. He has not talked about anything to do with the Bill or the Maastricht treaty for some time. However, I congratulate him on at least looking at the document. He said that I was aghast to discover that it was not in the Library. I was rather surprised, and I put it there. It has not been there for months, and in congratulating me, the hon. Gentleman has become the first hon. Member to ask me anything about it.
We have not ratified the convention, and at the moment we cannot do so, because of a dispute between Spain and ourselves over Spain's wish to maintain its border with Gibraltar. When it is ratified, some changes will be needed to domestic legislation and rules to bring it into effect. That will be within the competence of the House, and I shall then be able to discuss matters relevant to that debate, which are not relevant now. I should be happy to answer detailed questions on a more suitable occasion.

Mr. Madden: I am equally delighted to have tabled a question for the next Home Office question time. I hope that the computer will be on my side and my question will be listed, which will enable the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give a direct reply to my direct question. I stress the great importance which many of my constituents attach to it.
My second point concerns the need to introduce visa exemptions for short-stay visitors who have visas or residence permits issued by other member states. Abolishing the visa exemption stamp and re-entry stamp was one of the silliest things that the Government have done in the past 12 months. It has caused considerable difficulty to many of my constituents. Again, the Government were rushed into that decision primarily on the grounds of cost rather than because of any other consideration.
The section also says that there will be a joint computerised list of inadmissible persons—those in prison for at least 12 months in a member state, or guilty of repeated immigration offences, for example. We are told that work is already under way.
Several hon. Members have asked today what the point of the visas is. What is the purpose behind the plan for common visas? Clearly it is designed to build up an enormous computer database.

Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman is trying to return to what he was saying a moment ago. If we are not careful, he will soon be making a speech about the Dublin convention on asylum seekers. We have ratified that, through the ad hoc committee of Immigration Ministers. The convention that the hon. Gentleman is talking about is now before that ad hoc committee, and it has been agreed in principle but not ratified. Currently, I am afraid, it is not likely to be ratified in the near future.
Such discussions take place now. Like my predecessors, I regularly go to Europe and discuss such matters at meetings of the ad hoc committee of Immigration Ministers. That is my responsibility in government, and it also falls solely within the responsibility of this Parliament. I am accountable to Parliament for these matters, and no one has ever bothered to challenge them in the past.
The Bill simply puts arrangements which are already in place on a more formal footing. If Maastricht is ratified, the hon. Gentleman will get more information about these discussions than he has been able to obtain in the past. There will be no surrender of our sovereignty or control. Although this is an interesting debate, and I accept that I am accountable for what I have agreed to in the Dublin convention, it has absolutely nothing to do with Maastricht. The hon. Gentleman's right to raise these matters on behalf of his constituents is not even faintly affected by this debate.

Mr. Madden: The Home Secretary deftly seeks to encourage us to regard all these matters as separate boxes, but those of us who deal with them daily know that they are linked. There has been a coalition between Front-Bench spokesmen across the Chamber in this debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was moved to say late last night that not only is there a coalition between them but they also all happen to be lawyers. They seem to be trying to kid us that these matters have no implications for other areas. In that they are terribly wrong. All of them are related, all of them are linked.
The main objective, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) said, is to keep out of fortress Europe as many black and Asian people as possible and to create as much difficulty as possible for black and Asian non-EC nationals living in the European Community who seek to exercise their rights to free movement within it.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend has an excellent point about these links. It may be convenient for the Home Secretary to say that the House will not be prevented from debating these issues: that may well be true. A county council is not usually fettered in what it can debate. The problem is that it does not always have powers to do anything. If Maastricht goes through, we will be unable to have an asylum and immigration policy different from that laid down by the European Community, because of the reserve powers that the Community holds to take asylum and immigration into its jurisdiction.

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is right.

Mr. Cash: I have a great deal of sympathy in principle with the hon. Gentleman's notion—that under the treaty these matters will effectively be dealt with as if the Community were a single state. Implicit in that is the idea that no Community national would ever be persecuted in circumstances arising under article 1 of the Geneva convention. Given the unfortunate and depressing assessment of what is happening in Germany at present —the persecution of people who have gone to that country and the revival of fascism there—would the hon. Gentleman be satisfied if the same sort of principles were applied under the treaty as appear not to be applied to those being persecuted in Germany?

Mr. Madden: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman voted for the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, which was an essential building block—

Mr. Cash: I am talking about the EEC.

Mr. Madden: That Bill laid down a number of important principles, which are a blueprint for fortress Europe. They will all be adopted by every other EC member state. Her Majesty's Government are in the vanguard.
When we challenged the Under-Secretary in Committee about what would happen when someone was returned, having sought asylum in this country, to a so-called safe third country, he said that he did not know—it was not his business. That shows the compassion of the Government.
The Bill also requires those seeking asylum to be fingerprinted. We could not even get the Government to set an age limit below which a child should not be fingerprinted. They even refused to exempt lone children seeking asylum here. As far as I know, only one Conservative Member voted against one of the most offensive clauses, although others abstained.
Conservative Members' education about these matters is not quite as good as it could be, but I trust that, when the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill returns from another place, where I hope that their Lordships will defeat clause 10, Conservative Members will not bring pressure to bear to overturn their Lordships' decision.

Mr. Marlow: I think that, once again, my right hon. and learned Friend may inadvertently be misleading the House. I draw attention again to article K.3(2). My right hon. and learned Friend said that we have a double lock on immigration and asylum issues, and that they are still under the control of the House, but under article K.3(2) it is possible that, late at night at a Council meeting in Europe, it will be unanimously decided to take joint action on an initiative of the Commission, or to agree to joint proposals.
Once we take joint action, a joint policy emerges, and once there is a joint policy at the European level, we can never take back control of it. My right hon. and learned Friend might have to come to the House to explain his decision, but by then the matter would be over and done with.

Mr. Madden: The Home Secretary has been listening intently; I hope that he is preparing to intervene to answer the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and other hon. Members, including myself.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I cannot remember how many times I have answered these questions in the past six or seven hours. We held an exhaustive discussion on article K.3(2) yesterday. Decisions under it must be taken unanimously. That means that the British and Danish Governments would have to agree to them, and it is quite plain that no foreseeable Danish or British Government would so so.
They also require the approval of the House, because, even under article K.3(2), conventions must be carried forward in accordance with constitutional arrangements in each member state. The double lock is most unlikely to be unlocked in the foreseeable future. That is why I say that, in this part of the treaty, nothing is being brought into the Community's competence except the list of countries from which we require visas, and the format of the visas.

Mr. Madden: When an EC national and his host of dependants comes to this country under these provisions, it will be necessary for that EC national to apply for residence after six months. What information will be required then? Who will make the decision? Will there be a right of appeal if the right of residence is refused?
These are important matters, directly bearing on the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney, who asked what information will be required when an EC national, with his large army of dependants—they are unacceptable if they come from Bosnia—applies. I see the Home Secretary laughing, but these are serious issues. Let us not forget that 300 million EC nationals could come here if they wished to.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East that it is unlikely that 300 million EC nationals will seek to come to Britain. However, that might happen and even The Sun might one day be persuaded to issue some warnings about it. I urge the Home Secretary to think about that.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Dame Janet. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) has asked the Home Secretary some questions, and earlier in the debate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) asked the Home Secretary whether he intended to reply to the debate. The Home Secretary did not make that clear.
At about this time yesterday, the Home Secretary was the fourth speaker in the debate, and since then many questions have been put to him. The many hon. Members who are seriously debating these matters, let alone people outside who are concerned for parliamentary democracy, will not regard the debate as complete until there is a proper and considered reply from a responsible Minister to speeches made yesterday and today. Such a reply would be forthcoming in a Standing Committee.

The Second Deputy Chairman: The Chair cannot force any hon. Member to his feet. No doubt the Home Secretary will have heard the comments of hon. Members.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. You have said that you cannot force any hon. Member to his feet. You will be aware that there is an overwhelming desire in the Committee to hear from my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who is courteous and who would wish to reply before the end of the debate.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. Never in my time in Parliament have I been surrounded by such a desperate demand to be heard at the end of a seven-hour debate during which I have intervened probably more frequently than any hon. Member. I assure the Committee that, if I hear a single point to which I have not already replied three times, I might be persuaded to my feet, but not otherwise.

Mr. Madden: rose—

Mr. Shore: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Madden: Yes.

Mr. Shore: The Home Secretary protests too much. He has made that comment several times, but it does not mean that he has answered the questions that were put to him. The question to which he refuses to turn his mind relates not to the matters in article K and article 100c but to the basic matter in article 8a:
Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.
Will the Home Secretary address those conditions and other matters in the treaty so that we may know what right has been given to 300 million Europeans and so that we can judge how such rights compare with rights that may be extended to people from third countries, those who are not Community nationals?

Mr. Clarke: rose—

The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We cannot have an intervention on an intervention.

Mr. Madden: I will give way to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Clarke: The right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) spoke about article 8a of the Single European Act. At least three times in the debate I have restated the Government's policy on that article and its interpretation, which is identical to the interpretation that we placed on it when the Single European Act received the approval of Parliament many years ago.

Mr. Madden: The Committee will form its own judgment on that response.
I shall conclude by referring to the difficulties faced by many British citizens when visiting other EC states and outline a case with reference to France. Late last night, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) raised the issue of the legal position of a French citizen who was refused the right to enter the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary looked a bit perplexed, and on brief reflection denied that a French citizen refused a right of entry to the United Kingdom had any remedy in the European Court of Justice.
One of my constituents, a British citizen recently refused entry to France, is seeking compensation from the French Government. If he is not given satisfaction, he intends, on legal advice, to take the case to the European Court. The incident occurred in early December, and my constituent, who was travelling on a British visitor's passport and also had in his possession his British citizen certificate, was refused entry at Calais by a French immigration officer who could not speak English, who did not endeavour to get assistance from a colleague who did,


and who did not bother to make any inquiries of officials in Dover or anywhere else. My constituent was back on the ferry within 14 minutes of seeking entry to France.

Mr. Macdonald: Does my hon. Friend agree that he is making a powerful case for the treaty and for opening the borders in a way that will enable his constituent to travel freely to France or to any other Community country? if my hon. Friend's constituent is denied entry, he can go to the European Court of Justice and base his case on the treaty's provisions.

Mr. Madden: I hope that I am making a powerful case to underline what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East and other hon. Members—that, far too often, immigration officials in the United Kingdom, other Community countries and elsewhere take arbitrary and unjust decisions based on the appearance of the person concerned.
My constituent is a British citizen of Pakistan origin. The French immigration official saw from his papers that he was born in Jhelum in Pakistan, and to him it was inconceivable that someone born in Pakistan could be a British citizen entitled to exercise his right of free movement. I hope that my constituent will receive assistance from the Government.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Dame Janet. For the first time in the debate, there is a large number—relatively speaking—of Liberal Democrat Members in the Committee. They have obviously been told by the Government that the Government intend to move the closure fairly soon. They have not told me. Have they told you, Dame Janet?

The Second Deputy Chairman: Who may be here and who may not is not a matter for the Chair.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: Further to that point of order, Dame Janet. Is it not relevant for the occupant of the Chair to know who is in the Committee, so that hon. Members who wish to speak are not unfortunately overlooked?

The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman well knows the context in which I made my comments.

Mr. Madden: On 4 January the Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Mr. Lennox-Boyd), perhaps the most relaxed and laid-back member of the Government, told me:
A copy of your letter has been faxed to the Consular Section of the British Embassy in Paris. They will take the matter up directly with the French Immigration Service. As you say this matter is distressing. It is very rare for immigration officers to take exception to British nationals travelling on British Visitors Passports. I will write to you again when we receive a reply from the French authorities.
No reply has yet been received. Although my constituent is a British citizen, he was travelling on a British visitor's passport because of the horrendous difficulty in obtaining a British passport. As the Home Secretary knows, long delays led to those who were entitled to British passports seeking visitors' passports at post offices. I hope that the Home Secretary will ensure that those entitled to British citizenship and to British passports will be able to get them reasonably quickly. I also hope that he will ensure that non-EC nationals settled

in the United Kingdom will be able to travel to other EC member states for a period of three months without the need to apply for a visa.

8 pm

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech carefully; he has made some excellent points. Does he agree that the arrangement between the United Kingdom and the USA to dispense with the necessity for visas is beneficial and useful? As the USA is a major trading partner and many Americans live here, the arrangement is valuable. However, it might be scrapped if the sort of scenario outlined by the hon. Gentleman came about, which would be to the disadvantage of a major trading partner and a major friend of this country.

Mr. Madden: I agree that it is important to maintain the three-month tourist period on visits to America. I appeal to the Home Secretary to scrap clause 9 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill—

Mr. James Arbuthnot: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 293, Noes 230.

Division No. 128]
[8.01 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Chapman, Sydney


Alexander, Richard
Churchill, Mr


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Clappison, James


Alton, David
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)


Amess, David
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ancram, Michael
Coe, Sebastian


Arbuthnot, James
Colvin, Michael


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Congdon, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Conway, Derek


Ashby, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Cormack, Patrick


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Couchman, James


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Baldry, Tony
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dafis, Cynog


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Dalyell, Tam


Bates, Michael
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Batiste, Spencer
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Beresford, Sir Paul
Devlin, Tim


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dickens, Geoffrey


Booth, Hartley
Dicks, Terry


Boswell, Tim
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Dover, Den


Bowden, Andrew
Duncan, Alan


Bowis, John
Dunn, Bob


Brandreth, Gyles
Durant, Sir Anthony


Brazier, Julian
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Eggar, Tim


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Elletson, Harold


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Burt, Alistair
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Butler, Peter
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Butterfill, John
Evennett, David


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Faber, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Fabricant, Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)






Fishburn, Dudley
Maclean, David


Forman, Nigel
Maclennan, Robert


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forth, Eric
Madel, David


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Malone, Gerald


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mans, Keith


Freeman, Roger
Marland, Paul


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garnier, Edward
Mates, Michael


Gillan, Cheryl
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gorst, John
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Merchant, Piers


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Milligan, Stephen


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Mills, Iain


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hague, William
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, Sir John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, Andrew
Needham, Richard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hayes, Jerry
Nicholls, Patrick


Heald, Oliver
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hendry, Charles
Norris, Steve


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Hicks, Robert
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Ottaway, Richard


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Page, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Paice, James


Horam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Patten, Rt Hon John


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Pickles, Eric


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rathbone, Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, John


Hunter, Andrew
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Johnston, Sir Russell
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Tom


Kirkwood, Archy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, David
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shersby, Michael


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sims, Roger


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Leigh, Edward
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Soames, Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Speed, Sir Keith


Lidington, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lightbown, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spink, Dr Robert


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spring, Richard


Llwyd, Elfyn
Sproat, Iain


Luff, Peter
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lynne, Ms Liz
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael





Stern, Michael
Wallace, James


Streeter, Gary
Waller, Gary


Sumberg, David
Ward, John


Sykes, John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Waterson, Nigel


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Watts, John


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wells, Bowen


Temple-Morris, Peter
Welsh, Andrew


Thomason, Roy
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Whitney, Ray


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Thurnham, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Willetts, David


Tracey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Tredinnick, David
Wood, Timothy


Trend, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Trotter, Neville
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Twinn, Dr Ian



Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Andrew McKay.


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William





NOES


Ainger, Nick
Darling, Alistair


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Armstrong, Hilary
Denham, John


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Austin-Walker, John
Dixon, Don


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dobson, Frank


Barnes, Harry
Dowd, Jim


Barron, Kevin
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Battle, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bayley, Hugh
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Beckett, Margaret
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Enright, Derek


Bennett, Andrew F.
Etherington, Bill


Benton, Joe
Fatchett, Derek


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Flynn, Paul


Betts, Clive
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Blair, Tony
Foulkes, George


Boyce, Jimmy
Fraser, John


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Fyfe, Maria


Bradley, Keith
Galbraith, Sam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Gapes, Mike


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
George, Bruce


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Gerrard, Neil


Budgen, Nicholas
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Burden, Richard
Gill, Christopher


Byers, Stephen
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Caborn, Richard
Godsiff, Roger


Callaghan, Jim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Canavan, Dennis
Gould, Bryan


Cann, Jamie
Graham, Thomas


Cash, William
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Coffey, Ann
Gunnell, John


Cohen, Harry
Hain, Peter


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hall, Mike


Corbett, Robin
Hanson, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Corston, Ms Jean
Harvey, Nick


Cousins, Jim
Hawksley, Warren


Cox, Tom
Henderson, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Heppell, John


Cummings, John
Home Robertson, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)






Hoyle, Doug
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pike, Peter L.


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Ingram, Adam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jamieson, David
Prescott, John


Janner, Greville
Primarolo, Dawn


Jessel, Toby
Purchase, Ken


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jowell, Tessa
Randall, Stuart


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Alan
Reid, Dr John


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Khabra, Piara S.
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terry


Knapman, Roger
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Rowlands, Ted


Legg, Barry
Ruddock, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Litherland, Robert
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livingstone, Ken
Short, Clare


Lord, Michael
Simpson, Alan


Loyden, Eddie
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McAllion, John
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


McMaster, Gordon
Spellar, John


Madden, Max
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maginnis, Ken
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mahon, Alice
Stevenson, George


Mandelson, Peter
Stott, Roger


Marek, Dr John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Marlow, Tony
Straw, Jack


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sweeney, Walter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maxton, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Meacher, Michael
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Michael, Alun
Tipping, Paddy


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Trimble, David


Miller, Andrew
Walley, Joan


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Wareing, Robert N


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Watson, Mike


Morgan, Rhodri
Wicks, Malcolm


Morley, Elliot
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Winnick, David


Mudie, George
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Mullin, Chris
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Murphy, Paul
Wise, Audrey


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Worthington, Tony


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Wright, Dr Tony


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Hara, Edward



Olner, William
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Neill, Martin
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Pawsey, James
Mr. Alan Meale.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 70, Noes 281.

Division No. 129]
[8.14 pm


AYES


Austin-Walker, John
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Barnes, Harry
Canavan, Dennis


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cann, Jamie


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cash, William


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Chisholm, Malcolm


Boyce, Jimmy
Cohen, Harry


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Corston, Ms Jean


Budgen, Nicholas
Cryer, Bob


Burden, Richard
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)





Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Marlow, Tony


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Paisley, Rev Ian


Gerrard, Neil
Pawsey, James


Gill, Christopher
Pickthall, Colin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Gordon, Mildred
Purchase, Ken


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Gould, Bryan
Rowlands, Ted


Graham, Thomas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hawksley, Warren
Simpson, Alan


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Skinner, Dennis


Hunter, Andrew
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Spearing, Nigel


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Knapman, Roger
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Trimble, David


Leighton, Ron
Winnick, David


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Litherland, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Livingstone, Ken
Wise, Audrey


Lord, Michael



Loyden, Eddie
Tellers for the Ayes:


McAllion, John
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Mahon, Alice
Mr. Max Madden.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Coe, Sebastian


Alexander, Richard
Colvin, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Congdon, David


Alton, David
Conway, Derek


Amess, David
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arbuthnot, James
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cormack, Patrick


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Couchman, James


Ashby, David
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Aspinwall, Jack
Dafis, Cynog


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Day, Stephen


Baldry, Tony
Devlin, Tim


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bates, Michael
Dicks, Terry


Batiste, Spencer
Dorrell, Stephen


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bellingham, Henry
Dover, Den


Beresford, Sir Paul
Duncan, Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dunn, Bob


Booth, Hartley
Durant, Sir Anthony


Boswell, Tim
Dykes, Hugh


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Eggar, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Elletson, Harold


Bowden, Andrew
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Brandreth, Gyles
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Brazier, Julian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Evennett, David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fabricant, Michael


Burns, Simon
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burt, Alistair
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butler, Peter
Fishburn, Dudley


Butterfill, John
Forman, Nigel


Campbell, Menzies (Fife HE)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Forth, Eric


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Foster, Don (Bath)


Carrington, Matthew
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Freeman, Roger


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
French, Douglas


Chapman, Sydney
Gale, Roger


Churchill, Mr
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Clappison, James
Garnier, Edward


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Gillan, Cheryl






Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Milligan, Stephen


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Mills, Iain


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hague, William
Moss, Malcolm


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Needham, Richard


Hampson, Dr Keith
Nelson, Anthony


Hannam, Sir John
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hargreaves, Andrew
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Harris, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Haselhurst, Alan
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hawkins, Nick
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hayes, Jerry
Norris, Steve


Heald, Oliver
Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hendry, Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Page, Richard


Hicks, Robert
Paice, James


Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.
Patnick, Irvine


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Horam, John
Pickles, Eric


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Powell, William (Corby)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rathbone, Tim


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Redwood, John


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Richards, Rod


Jack, Michael
Riddick, Graham


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Johnston, Sir Russell
Robathan, Andrew


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Key, Robert
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Kilfedder, Sir James
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


King, Rt Hon Tom
Sackville, Tom


Kirkwood, Archy
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knox, David
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shersby, Michael


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Sims, Roger


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Leigh, Edward
Soames, Nicholas


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Speed, Sir Keith


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lidington, David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lightbown, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Spring, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sproat, Iain


Llwyd, Elfyn
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Luff, Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


MacKay, Andrew
Stern, Michael


Maclean, David
Streeter, Gary


Maclennan, Robert
Sumberg, David


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sykes, John


Madel, David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Malone, Gerald
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mans, Keith
Thomason, Roy


Marland, Paul
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thurnham, Peter


Mates, Michael
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tracey, Richard


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


Merchant, Piers
Trotter, Neville


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Twinn, Dr Ian





Tyler, Paul
Widdecombe, Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Willetts, David


Wallace, James
Wolfson, Mark


Waller, Gary
Wood, Timothy


Ward, John
Yeo, Tim


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Waterson, Nigel



Watts, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope and


Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.


Whitney, Ray

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 99 on page 16 of Cm 1934)'.

The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient also to discuss the following amendments: No. 45, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, after '1992', insert
'but not Article 99 in Title II thereof.
No. 422, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 99 on page 16 of Cm. 1934, so far as it may relate to the ending of derogations permitting zero-rating of VAT in the United Kingdom.).'.
No. 423, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after 'II', insert
'(except Article 99 on page 16 of Cm. 1934. so far as it may relate to further harmonisation in respect of excise or other internal taxes.).'.

Mr. Smith: Amendment No. 9, which would delete article 99 from the Bill, is not one that we shall pursue to a Division.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] It is a probing amendment, intended to allow the Committee an opportunity to debate important issues relating to the harmonisation of indirect taxation.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Normally in Committee—certainly in the 20 years that I have been a Member of Parliament —right hon. and hon. Members try to refine a Bill. The whole purpose of the Committee stage is to go through a Bill in detail, change it as one goes along, improve it, and so on. We have another 17 Labour amendments to consider. What is the purpose of them when a member of the Opposition Front Bench pops up and says, "We've tabled this amendment but we're not going to vote for it. We are going to speak and vote against it." The whole thing is becoming a charade. What is going on?

Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that we will certainly be pressing a number of amendments to a Division—such as amendment No. 27, concerning the social chapter, and others that reflect Labour party policy.

Mr. Cash: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that several titles in the treaty are not included in the Bill? He compounds the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), that this is becoming an absurdity on the part of the Opposition. Not only are they not prepared to put their votes where their windbaggery is, but they are including a whole range of matters that are not in the Bill.

Mr. Smith: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) is the last person to speak about windbaggery—and we will take no lectures from him on absurdity either.
Article 99 states:
The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament and the Economic and Social Committee, adopt


provisions for the harmonization of legislation concerning turnover taxes, excise duties and other forms of indirect taxation to the extent that such harmonization is necessary to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market within the time limit laid down in Article 7a.
It is important to emphasise the words
to the extent that such harmonization is necessary to ensure".
Labour has not supported and does not support the contention that it is necessary to make indirect tax rates the same to ensure that the single market operates effectively.
In particular, we have vigorously opposed any moves to end the opportunity for Britain to levy a zero rate of value added tax. We equally oppose the move that the Government are reportedly contemplating, to impose VAT on newspapers, books and publications in the forthcoming Budget. Any such move would place a wholly undesirable burden on consumers and would inflict gratuitous damage on important national industries at this time of deep recession. What is more, such a change could not be justified as necessary for the functioning of the single market.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I did not wish to interrupt him, but I wanted to intervene on a specific point. I am pleased to hear what he said because there will be absolute unanimity among Opposition parties, except perhaps one, in agreeing with him. Can I take it therefore that the Opposition Front Bench will wholeheartedly support amendment No. 422 which has been selected as part of this group and which states that the Bill will not apply to anything which ends derogation of zero rating in VAT in the United Kingdom? From what he has said, I understand that my hon. Friend will be voting for that amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) which will be put to a vote. Perhaps he could give the House that assurance.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for what I was saying about the importance of defending Britain's right to sustain zero rating. As I read amendment No. 422, it would not approve article 99 as it specifies:
so far as it may relate to the ending of derogations permitting zero-rating of VAT in the United Kingdom".
As I have said, I do not accept that it would or should be taken to end zero rating derogation and therefore it would not be necessary to support that amendment to sustain the position that I have been advocating. However, I certainly agree with the spirit in which the amendment was tabled.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This is Committee style, and I am quite sure that he agrees with this form of discussion.
Article 99 in its new form would surely give the Community that very power. Unlike the existing article 99, which is entrenched in the treaty of Rome, there is no escape clause, as the Home Secretary was vigorously advocating in the last debate saying that article 8a was not relevant because it already exists. This is a new article 99 and if the amendment is carried, as I hope it will be, the Bill will provide that no regulation or directive from the European Community can increase or apply VAT to anything which is at the moment derogated. I would have thought that that would have appealed enormously to my

hon. Friend. Surely it is the legal and precise reading of such an amendment because we would have a new article 99 after the treaty of European union.

Mr. Smith: As I said, I do not accept that article 99 should be interpreted in that way.
I intended to press the Paymaster General on the very point that my hon. Friend raised about what powers specifically are granted under the treaty and what follows from the treaty in relation to Britain's ability to levy a zero rate of VAT. As I was saying, it would be especially damaging for such a change to be contemplated. Moreover, it would be inconsistent with the pledges that the Prime Minister made during the general election campaign.
It would also be inconsistent with what the Paymaster General said when he assured the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) in a letter on 6 January 1993 that there was no intention to extend VAT to newspapers, books and publications.

Mr. Michael Spicer: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, and in my view it is wholly admirable, for various reasons which I hope to explain, why is he equivocal about pressing amendment No. 422 which the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has brought to his attention?

Mr. Smith: I have made it clear that I do not interpret article 99 as involving that danger. Moreover, I would not advocate supporting an amendment that would wreck the treaty.
In any event, it is somewhat ironic that we are debating this part of the Bill today, four weeks after the advent of the single market and the 31 December 1992 deadline set out in article 7a to which article 99 refers. The single market is of course already with us and this evening's debate provides us with an early opportunity to press the Government on their judgment of how well or badly the new arrangements are working out in practice and, in particular, on how things stand in regard to the operation of the new VAT regime.
The Minister will have seen many of the reports in the press highlighting the difficulties which are all the more serious because they impede consumers and businesses from making the most of the opportunities which the single market offers.
The Daily Telegraph of Monday 18 January reported a number of serious problems. It said that:
Accountants … phone lines have been jammed by companies who cannot ship goods around Europe because of tax difficulties say the situation is chaos with no prospect for improvement for months yet.
Christine Sanderson of Price Waterhouse was quoted as saying:
Many people do not understand what the changes are and so they are not properly prepared. But the most disappointing aspect has been that various countries are not prepared. We had believed that government would get their act together.
The article continues:
Trouble spots have emerged in Spain, Portugal, Italy and, perhaps more surprisingly, in Belgium and the Netherlands where lorries have been kept waiting at customs points while officials checked documents which in theory should no longer be required.
The article goes on to itemise other difficulties:
Huge backlogs in handing out VAT numbers on the continent. VAT registration is absolutely essential to the working of the new system.


Although Britain is well prepared in that respect, those other member states which have used other tax codes have now had to dish out many new tax codes specifically for the purpose of VAT. The article continues:
Price Waterhouse estimate that there are 'millions' of VAT numbers to be issued, a process which could take years. Companies selling to buyers who have not yet received a VAT number could find themselves liable for the payments which may not be recoverable.".

Mr. James Molyneaux: When I paid one of my very rare visits to Brussels last November, we were given lectures by officials of the Commission and when we asked about the transition period beginning 1 January in regard to VAT in particular, they all confessed that it will be a sheer muddle because although the Governments had exhorted each other to obey the rules and to have everything in place on 1 January, there was no hope of that happening for some months.
May I also back-track to support the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who I call my hon. Friend for these purposes, in regard to his point about derogation. As leader of an Opposition party, I have always taken the view that whenever we are in doubt we should oppose the Government of the day, whatever colour it may be, to safeguard those who send us here. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, in the light of what will be unsatisfactory assurances from the Government, will reconsider their decision not to vote on the amendment.

Mr. Smith: I agree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said. Clearly, it is incumbent on Governments to get their act together for the introduction of the new VAT regime. Can the Minister say what information the Government now have on the adequacy of those preparations and how far are other countries properly geared up to issuing VAT numbers and to the full and fair administration of the new system?
I now return to the other difficulties itemised in the article. They include confusion over goods currently in Customs warehouses awaiting export. The article stated:
In Holland and Belgium, tax authorities have told companies they will not release goods that entered warehouses before January 1 unless VAT is paid first. This form of back tax is not legal, according to British tax opinion.
It would be helpful to have the Government view about that. The article went on to refer to what it described as
the EEC's infamous simplification directive, which was intended to make it easier for companies exporting to buyers in one EC country via a middleman in a third member state … That has already broken down in Spain. The Spanish have said they will not implement the directive until September, so British companies selling indirectly to Spain will have to register there temporarily.
It concluded by drawing attention to what it described as
the biggest problem yet to come.
That was the need for companies, by 10 February, to file details of their January exports and imports with national tax authorities. It pointed out that the relevant form
asks 19 different questions, including the weight of the goods shipped, their value and a code number.
Although ignoring those is a criminal offence, the article said:
one medium-sized exporter … reckons it will have to double its export clerical staff to deal with the new requirement, which in the past was handled entirely by government officials.

May we have the Government's estimation, on the basis of information available to them, of the extent of those difficulties and what is being done about them?

Mr. Robert Sheldon: My hon. Friend is making a vital point. Whereas ordinary imports and exports can be dealt with—it will take time, but such matters will eventually be sorted out—the authorities have not got anywhere near sorting out the intercountry, third party trade, where a trading body buys from one country and sells to another, conducting a valuable wholesaling function. Proper provision has not been made for that. It may be months before those concerned even begin to work out satisfactory solutions. It is a serious matter for a trading country such as Britain.

Mr. Smith: I share my right hon. Friend's concern about that serious issue. I fear that the problems will result in what was intended to be a better system getting off to a damaging start. As he says, it could act as a great disadvantage to a country such as ours. A great proportion of our production goes for export, exceeded, sadly, by the faster rising level of imports. Are the problems to which I referred confirmed by the information that the Minister is receiving? If so, what action is being taken by the British Government and other member states to resolve them?
Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), will the Minister state the British Government's position on, and interpretation of, the Community's legal position on the future of the legally binding minimum VAT rate of 15 per cent., which the Chancellor conceded in July last year was part of the package which then enabled Britain to retain its zero rates, at least to the end of 1996, when the agreement comes up for review? An article in the Financial Times on 28 July last year said:
There is still some confusion about whether member states have committed themselves to having a legally binding minimum VAT rate for ever. Mr. Lamont indicated that the directive would lapse if ministers failed to reach unanimous agreement on a renewed legally binding minimum before 1996. The Community would then be subject only to last year's non-binding accord.
It reports others as disagreeing, pointing out that Mr. Jorge Braga de Macedo of Portugal, who was the Chancellor's predecessor as president of the Council of Finance Ministers, believed that
the legally binding minimum would be automatically renewed if they failed to agree. That would deprive dissenters, possibly including Britain, of any effective veto.
That issue is of great concern to hon. Members and I hope that the Minister will give a clear answer, including the benefit of the legal advice that the Government are receiving on the issue.

Mr. Cash: In view of the case that the hon. Gentleman is putting on behalf of the Labour party, may I ask him to say whether he is in favour of what appears to be an argument for the harmonisation of VAT and if he appreciates the corollary to that, which is in the Onno Ruding report, published in the summer and clearly Commission policy, for the harmonisation of business taxes? Is that Labour party policy? Considering the date 1 January 1996 and all that will be going on at about that time, he might clarify whether Labour is also in favour of a single currency.

Mr. Smith: There will be other occasions to deal with matters such as those. I am anxious to remain in order and to relate my arguments to the amendments now before the Committee. I have already made it clear that the Labour party does not believe it necessary to levy the same rate of indirect tax for the single market to operate properly.
I have put a number of questions to the Minister. Given the importance of developments that will be occurring in future years on the subjects I have raised, perhaps the Minister will give the latest Government thinking on the arguments for a move to an origin-based system rather than the destination-based system of VAT that is now operating. The change has been advocated by the Commission and others. What is the Minister's response, for example, to the arguments advanced by the Simpler Trade Procedures Board, known as Sitpro, that an origin-based system would be an improvement because it would replicate the domestic system, dispense with the requirement for a European sales listing, eliminate the need for evidence that goods have left the country and avoid the complex problems of triangulation—or strangulation, as some in the trade are already calling it?
May we also be assured that if the Government were looking to an origin-based regime, as the Commission is likely to press member states to consider, our zero rates could be retained? It is important for us to know what stance the Government are taking on Community discussion of those important policy issues.
Have there been any developments since the draft 7th VAT directive was considered by the Standing Committee on 2 December? At that time we debated, in particular, the question of the rate of VAT on imported works of art. Hon. Members in all parts of the House expressed concern about the future of London's international art market, which is worth well over £1 billion a year, if the proposals set out in that draft directive and imported works of art were to come into effect.
The directive would impose VAT of at least 5 per cent. on art entering the EC, and that could have grave consequences for British and European culture, discouraging the repatriation of art which has already gone abroad and provoking an outflow of the national heritage. We have seen from the Irish experience what such attacks can do to the art market. We continue to urge the Minister to accept the recommendations of the National Heritage Select Committee and adopt a vigorous stand against those potentially damaging proposals. Will he set out the Government's position on that issue?
The Minister and I have exchanged correspondence about the bloodstock industry. The advent of the single market and the lower rates of VAT applied in other member states have presented a dire threat to that industry because of the obvious attractions for buyers and sellers to trade in markets where the lower rate of VAT is charged.
So serious is that situation that Tattersalls, in response to its clients' preferences, have moved their yearling sales to Fairyhouse in Ireland for next September and in a news release announcing this sad fact it said:
This decision has been brought about by the United Kingdom Government steadfastly refusing to give the industry the competitive low rate available under EC law. Separately, they are considering the possibility of extending VAT registration to racehorse owners
I will come back to that in a minute. I am aware that there are ongoing discussions between representatives of the industry and of the Government on this and of the fact

that some schemes attempting to ameliorate the situation have been put forward, namely, proposals on distance selling, on dispatch and acquisition and the flat rate farming scheme which we shall be debating again next week.
However, there have been problems about this between the Government and the industry. In that same news release, Tattersalls said:
in the last few days
this was dated 24 November—
an unexpected change has emerged from discussions with Customs and Excise. Previously we had been assured by Her Majesty's Government that all horses coming to Newmarket from Ireland and France and being sold by United Kingdom Flat Rate Farmers would be sold free of all United Kingdom VAT,
—as stated in its previous press release of 21 September.
Customs have now changed their previous interpretation so that all Yearlings, previously purchased with Irish or French VAT charged in either of these two countries, would have to be sold by Flat Rate Farmers with VAT in Newmarket or VAT would have to be charged on entry into the United Kingdom.
So I ask the Paymaster General, as those most closely involved in this remain very concerned about the situation and the implications for the industry, what the Government will do about this. It is an industry in which Britain is a world leader and many jobs depend on it. It is imperative that it is not damaged further. I ask the Paymaster General to assure the House that the Government will give urgent and sympathetic reconsideration to those matters. I think he should look again at the proposal to allow racehorse owners and traders to register, as they can do in nine of the 12 member states. That is one of the key steps which have been suggested by people in the industry as being of most assistance in resolving the crisis.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does the hon. Member accept the statement by Tattersalls which he read out that there is a competitively low rate of VAT available in this case? Is he suggesting that VAT should be lowered in the way they are suggesting?

Mr. Smith: I did not make that suggestion, but I ask the Government sympathetically and urgently to reconsider the whole situation. It is not the only suggestion put forward to remedy the situation. I understand from Tattersalls that allowing breeders and owners to register for VAT would equally well meet the concern and prevent a valuable industry from being threatened and destroyed in the way that this industry otherwise looks likely to be destroyed.
Another specific area on which I would like the Paymaster General to elaborate is the ending of restrictions on the importing of goods for personal consumption and the consequent changes in Customs procedures. He gave me an estimate in a written parliamentary reply that the prospective revenue loss due to this is likely to be £250 million a year. Does that estimate still hold good in the light of the experience they have had so far of the new regime? Has he also been able to evaluate the likely extent of smuggling and other dealing in contraband as a result of the changes and what measures have the Government put in place to combat them? Is he satisfied that the Excise have the officers that they need properly to combat smuggling? Everyone in the House will be particularly concerned about the position with drugs and weapons. It is imperative that the staff are in place to do that job. There have been cuts in staff and


redeployment and the larger estimates made at one time of the numbers of officers which were likely to be needed to be appointed have not been met and there is concern among the employees of Customs and Excise about how far they are being given the resources to do the job.
It is important that the Government respond to that anxiety which is shared by most of the public. Has the Minister been able to evaluate the likely extent of smuggling as a result of the changes, what measures the Government have put in place to combat that risk and whether they are contemplating further measures?
The fourth area in which the House needs some assurances is the new Community VAT regime. There will be no intra-Community trades statistics for the first six months of operation of the new system of VAT payments and trade statistics. I can well understand, given the Government's abysmal record on trade, why it might suit them never to have trade statistics again but, given the obligation to publish them and their importance, I hope the Paymaster General can assure me that the system will at least be running adequately to provide statistics after the six months hiatus. Will the figures which are then provided be properly comparable with those previously gathered on the old basis?
I can see the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir. T. Taylor) shaking his head but, given the way that other important Government statistics, for example on unemployment, have been manipulated, it would not surprise me at all if we found as a consequence of this that valid statistical comparisons were made more difficult rather than being facilitated. I hope the Paymaster General will say that those fears are not properly grounded. Can he tell us whether the figures for the first half of the year will be made available and on what basis will the estimates be made?

Mr. Tim Smith: How were the trade statistics collected under the old regime and how will they be collected under the new one?

Mr. Andrew Smith: They are going to be collected under the new regime—

The Chairman: Order. I do not think we want a dissertation on trade statistics under this amendment. I would have pulled up the hon. Member if the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) had not asked his question so quickly.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I am sorry that I am precluded from giving the hon. Member for Beaconsfield a lecture on the collection and dissemination of trade statistics, but it is relevant to our debate that we are given assurances that the operation of the new system under the fiscal harmonisation provisions of article 99 will provide statistics that are valid and comparable for analytical purposes as they ought to be.
Will the Government publish any estimates of the underlying position during the six months that will elapse before the new statistics are available? Certainly, City analysts and commentators will publish estimates, perhaps based on financial flows.

Mr. Ian Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of questions, and I would be the first to acknowledge that they constitute a valid basis for a debate

in which we could engage at some point; but I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman a question that is limited to the specific confines of the Committee stage of this Bill.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only change involved in article 99 of the Single European Act is the introduction of further consultation with the European Economic and Social Committee? In supporting the Act, did not the House effectively agree to the objective of harmonising taxation? The implementation of that objective is extremely interesting; but the commitment was made under the Single European Act, which had the support of the House—including the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash).

9 pm

Mr. Smith: That is certainly an interesting point, which the hon. Gentleman will no doubt debate with his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). The VAT system, as operated in the Community, has developed since the passage of the Single European Act, but I think it entirely appropriate for hon. Members to have a full opportunity to question the implications of article 99—even hon. Members who voted for a very similar measure in the past. Implications tend to become apparent as systems develop, and as people analyse the legal ramifications. It is right for questions to be asked, and I only hope that the Paymaster General can answer them.

Dr. John Marek: Year after year, Ministers have said that harmonisation is not necessary to the operation of the single market. Have they now changed their minds?

Mr. Smith: I shall add that question to the others that I have already asked the Paymaster General. I have already made Labour's position clear.

Mr. Sheldon: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend, who is doing very well.
I had some responsibility for the sixth directive: I was in the chair at the time. When we agreed the provision on harmonisation, no time limit was in operation. In the case of article 99, there is a time limit. That makes a world of difference: it is easy to talk about harmonisation in the distant future, but time limits force us to confront the realities rather more urgently.

Mr. Smith: That is a good point—especially in view of the fact that the time limit in question was passed before we embarked on this debate.
Opposition Members are anxious for the operation of indirect taxation in relation to the single market to be fair to consumers, to foster trade and to stimulate business. We should aim for a fair, administratively efficient system, which, while not imposing unnecessary standardisation for the sake of it, ensures that the single market creates a reasonably level playing field. It is clear that the present arrangements leave a great deal to be desired, and the Government owe the Committee clear answers to the questions that I have raised.
Let me also ask the Paymaster General to give an assurance that we seek, and that the country wants—an assurance that the Government will not extend or raise VAT in the forthcoming Budget.

Sir John Cope: Let me begin with what could be described as a health warning. Although the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)—egged on to some extent by


interventions—trailed his coat quite a bit, and ranged widely in his discussion of the amendments, I hope that I shall not be expected to say anything about what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer might propose in his forthcoming Budget. I see that certain former Treasury Ministers on the Opposition Benches agree with my position. Nothing that I say should be taken as any hint at decisions which, in any event, have not yet been made. I shall be delighted—subject to your view of what is in order, Mr. Morris—to listen to any suggestions on this matter. However, I shall observe the tradition that applies to Treasury Ministers.

The Chairman: Order. I hope that hon. Members do not intend to make contributions or suggestions concerning the Budget. That would be out of order.

Sir John Cope: I think that that is a very proper ruling, Mr. Morris.
I have some sympathy with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) in an intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, East. My hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that the hon. Member for Oxford, East did not seem interested in addressing the amendments. Certainly he did not support them. Perhaps other hon. Members will address them.

Mr. Michael Spicer: There are many other things that I want to say. I hope that the early intervention of my right hon. Friend does not indicate that he will not speak later. If I catch your eye, Mr. Morris—

The Chairman: Order. Hon. Members make this point repeatedly. There is a clear convention that, in Committee, a Member moves an amendment, and a Minister responds. Whether the Minister intervenes later depends entirely on the course of the debate. It is not helpful for hon. Members to express the hope that the Minister will respond. It is a matter for the Minister to decide.

Mr. Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Morris. I am very grateful for your guidance, but I am sure that you will have noticed that there are two amendments in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Members. These have not so far been addressed in the debate, although there was a short exchange about their merits during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith). The Minister may make some observations about them, but until they are advocated it would be difficult to do more than that. In Standing Committees it is unusual for a Minister not to reply, particularly where there is a group of amendments. I hope, Mr. Morris, that you will bear that in mind. Can the overall debate be properly concluded unless there has been such specific debate?

The Chairman: Hon. Members seem to have forgotten —it may be some years since one or two of them have served on Standing Committees—that the normal procedure is that a Member moves an amendment and, especially if it is a substantive one, a Minister responds. Then hon. Members may seek to catch the Chairman's eye. Indeed, I have been noting the names of hon. Members who have risen, and I hope to be able to call them. It is normal for any new elements that are raised to be dealt with by the Minister if he feels that that is the

proper course. This should not have to be put on the record time after time as amendments are dealt with. That simply takes up the time of the Committee fairly uselessly.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Further to that point of order, Mr. Morris. While I accept your ruling entirely, may I ask you, in deciding whether to accept a closure motion, to bear in mind the convention in Standing Committees—on many of which I have served in various capacities, recently and in more distant times—that the Chair gives the Government an opportunity to respond? I realise that we shall not get a definitive ruling in respect of every Government reply, but may I ask whether, in your decision on a closure motion, you take into account the possibility that the Government will reply to debate that has taken place after the Minister's initial response?

The Chairman: I take all matters into consideration. It is particularly important to ensure that an amendment has been moved properly and is properly dealt with. That is the key determinant.

Sir John Cope: I had better turn immediately to the amendments. The first two on the list, Nos. 9 and 45, seek to remove the alterations to article 99 which are proposed in the treaty and to leave it as it is at present. If they were to be put into effect, the only result would be to delete the proposed new requirement that when indirect tax proposals were put forward the economic and social committee should be consulted.
Nothing was said from the Opposition Front Bench and I am not clear, therefore, what Opposition Members have against consulting the economic and social committee and what led them to move an amendment which would remove that consultation.

Mr. Andrew Smith: I made it very clear that this was a probing amendment in order for us to have this debate and to allow me to put important concerns to the Minister. It is a perfectly normal convention and I am surprised that he does not understand that.

Sir John Cope: As long as the hon. Gentleman appreciates the limited nature of the amendment that he has moved. We do, however, consult widely on proposed tax changes in this country. Treasury Ministers are frequently asked in Finance Bills to consult more rather than less, so to be asked to consult less is a slightly novel experience.
Amendments Nos. 422 and 423 are also puzzling in their intentions, if one reads them carefully and tries to apply them. Amendment No. 422 implies that deleting article 99—something which is not proposed by the treaty, the Bill or any of the amendments, so no one is supporting it—might somehow lead to an end to the derogations that permit the United Kingdom to have its various zero rates. But it is the sixth directive and its children which embody the agreement to the continuation of our zero rates. If, which no hon. Member on either side of the House is suggesting, we deleted article 99 and did not replace it, it might be said that there would then be no vires for the sixth directive, and that would include both the agreement for us to continue our zero rates and, for that matter, the part of the agreement under which otherwise we could not have the zero rates.
Amendment No. 422, therefore, would not in any way safeguard our zero rates, and the hon. Member for


Oxford, East was quite correct, if I understood him aright, in what he said about the effect of his hon. Friend's amendments.
Amendment No. 423 uses a different approach. It proposes that we should not have the authority to make any further agreements for excise or other internal taxes. That would be a mistake. After all, there may well be moves for further or other simplification of value added tax, for example, or other changes proposed for the protection of the United Kingdom revenue which might become necessary, and we might think it desirable to propose such changes to our colleagues in the Community for Community law or to the House, or to both. It is likely that in the future hon. Members on both sides will wish us to press for items of simplification and other changes which might be made but which would be prevented if amendment No. 423 were carried. It would freeze the indirect tax system from the moment that the treaty came into force.
I could not recommend such a course to the Committee and it may be that no hon. Member will, on reflection, want to pass any of these four amendments on their own merits.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Financial Secretary. He is absolutely right about the intention of amendment No. 423, and if I catch the Chairman's eye I may be able to take up the point that he has just made. It was difficult to draft amendment No. 422, but the intention is other than as he interpreted it. The intention is that article 99 remain, but, in so far as future use of it may, as stated in the amendment, end current derogations, it should not have that effect. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, under the sixth directive it would be possible after 1996 —admittedly, it may be a matter of unanimity—for those existing derogations to disappear. We are suggesting in the amendment that that power be not available under article 99. I hope that the intention is clear, even if the drafting is defective.

Sir John Cope: The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough to make the intention clear. He is right in saying, of course, that it would require unanimity. That is something which we have stuck to rigidly; indeed, we have not had to hold out for it, as all the member states are satisfied that unanimity is the right way to settle these tax matters, although sometimes it is quite a laborious process to arrive at proposals that are satisfactory to all. The difficulty of arriving at unanimity has been evident in connection with the various directives regarding VAT, some of which were passed later than we would have wished, in the interest of making good preparations.
I was asked to comment on the progress that was being made on this in other member states. The hon. Member for Oxford, East drew particularly on one press cutting in asking his questions. I am glad to be able to say that, if he refers to some other press reports, which are substantially confirmed by the information which the United Kingdom Customs is receiving, he will see that there have been relatively few problems at the borders. According to the Financial Times of 22 January, for example,
the Internal Market has got off to a good start.

As far as we can see, the frontier Customs staff in all the other member states have, in the main, turned out to be well prepared. There have been some exceptions. Some late decisions were taken, on about 29 December, in Spain and Portugal about certain agricultural and transitional Customs duty arrangements, which led to some early confusion, and there were also some commercial movements of excise goods about which there were misunderstandings in several member states regarding requirements for special accompanying documents, leading to delays in some circumstances.
There have also been some very encouraging reports about terrific improvements in delivery times, for example, for British exporters as a result of the elimination of routine Customs controls at the frontiers. One company reported a reduction of 17 hours in the journey to Spain as a result of the absence of Customs formalities at the United Kingdom end or at the various countries in between and the Spanish border itself. That highlights one of the important advantages of the single market for United Kingdom business.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned particularly in this context difficulties in issuing VAT registration numbers and asked what progress had been made. My advice is that only Germany has still to complete issuing VAT registration numbers. It may surprise hon. Members that Germany might be a laggard in a bureaucratic matter of this kind, but apparently it has had to change its system to take account of the new arrangements. I am sure that Germany will complete the process by the end of this month. The feedback from various consultative bodies, such as the VAT Practitioners Group, or the London part of it, and the Joint Customs Consultative Committee is that things are going well. There are a few teething problems, but they are being sorted out by working groups in Brussels.
At this week's meeting, Spain agreed to complete the necessary simplification provisions as a matter of urgency and is no longer requiring middle men in the triangular transactions to register for value added tax, one of the points to which the hon. Member for Oxford, East referred. All in all, it means a major reduction in the bureaucractic burdens on business. An independent consultant drew up an important report for us, which stated that the reduction in bureaucracy from the new system would be worth £135 million a year to British business.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not expect the right hon. Gentleman to answer me off the top of his head. Among the teething problems to which he referred was that of plant disease. Has it been resolved? Early last year there were difficulties caused by the movement of potential or actual plant disease across frontiers. Has anything been done about it? It is clearly a very difficult matter.

Sir John Cope: The hon. Gentleman rightly supposes that I cannot answer off the top of my head. I shall consult my colleagues at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who are especially expert and I shall write to him.
The speech of the hon. Member for Oxford, East ranged much more widely than the amendment. He spoke in general about the harmonisation of taxation and said, among other things, that the Labour party was not wedded to unity on taxation rates across the Community. Nor are the Government.
It is perhaps necessary to make a musical analogy when discussing this issue. People sometimes confuse harmony with unison. When musical instruments or singers play or sing in unison they use the same notes. Harmony involves different notes that blend with each other to create a pleasing overall sound. It is the notion of different notes leading to harmony that we seek in the tax system, rather than the unison or unity which is sometimes mistakenly mentioned in these discussions. Tax harmonisation does not mean that every member state has to have exactly the same tax system or rate. The differing systems should be able to work together, and that is what we have been thinking all along.
The hon. Gentleman drew attention to the next possible stage, the move to the origin system. The next step will be proposals from the Commission. I can see that there are some advantages in the origin system—the hon. Gentleman quoted the Simplified Trade Procedures Board in that context—but it is much too early to express a view, as the Commission has not produced its proposals. In fact, I believe that they are only in their early stages, if they exist at all. The Commission is not due to produce any proposals until the end of 1994, so there is no question of our discussing them. However, I understand the hon. Gentleman's point.
In talking about the future, the hon. Gentleman mentioned the 15 per cent. minimum rate of VAT. I can assure him that in the absence of further agreement between the member states, the agreement lapses at the end of four years.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Hear, hear.

Sir John Cope: I am glad that that has my hon. Friend's support.
The hon. Member for Oxford. East drew attention to several specific matters. Works of art are still being considered. We have not altered our position. The hon. Gentleman and the Committee know that the exemption of imports would be the best way to preserve the United Kingdom art market in a healthy state. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I are keeping in close touch with the art trade as the discussions proceed.
As for racehorses—

Mr. Dykes: Before my right hon. Friend starts talking about racehorses, I apologise for not having been here earlier when he started speaking—

Sir Teddy Taylor: You are never here.

Mr. Dykes: I have been here most of the afternoon—but I shall ignore that sedentary interruption from my hysterical hon. Friend.
Will the Minister reassure the Committee that the Government will keep open the idea of reducing the time for which duty-free facilities are to remain within the single market? Such facilities are an illogical contradiction in the single market, yet the transitional period has another seven years to run. Will the Minister reconsider the arrangement, just for the internal market in the member states?

Sir John Cope: The present agreement is for duty-free arrangements to continue for a bit. Recently most attention has been paid to the amount of duty paid, but I shall return to the subject of cross-border shopping in a moment.
I was about to mention racehorses, which are not, I admit, immediately relevant to the amendments—or, indeed, anything to do with them. The hon. Member for Oxford, East was correct to say that the horse racing authorities have told us of their proposals, which I hope will enable more owners to register for VAT under the present rules. Customs and Excise are preparing a technical paper on those matters, and I am keeping in close touch with all the relevant interests.
I promised to return to cross-border shopping and other such matters. The hon. Member for Oxford, East asked me if I could revise the estimate of £250 million given in the Red Book for the previous Budget as the likely loss of revenue resulting from cross-border shopping. It is difficult to make an accurate estimate, and we have no reason to revise the original estimate at the moment. We do not have sufficient information about the amount of cross-border shopping and its effects on revenue to carry out such a revision.

Mr. Iain Mills: I am sorry to be so slow in responding to my right hon. Friend's comments about VAT on horses, but I have just come into the Chamber, and I ask him to forgive me. Will my right hon. Friend give me some idea of the time scale of the review in which his officials are considering the technical aspects, especially the comparison between VAT levied in our country and in others? Will that take place soon, please?

Sir John Cope: Yes, I hope to be able to come back to my hon. Friend soon. We are in discussion, and it is not for us alone to decide how quickly the matter can be resolved. The Customs and Excise are one side in the discussion.
Cross-border shopping does not take place all one way. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) seems to have left the Chamber for the moment, but he will know that in Northern Ireland the land border provides a lot of scope, especially for shoppers from the Irish Republic, with its separate tax rates, to say nothing of the present exchange rates.
There have been various reports recently, notably the BBC "Food and Drink Programme" the night before last, which pointed out, I am told, that many of the more expensive wines are cheaper here than in France. So even with wine, cross-border shopping does not take place in only one direction. Apart from the legitimate transfer across borders for personal consumption of goods on which duty has been paid in other Community countries, there is also smuggling. As the hon. Member for Oxford, East said, goods on which overseas tax has been paid are brought across borders for resale in this country.
We have set up some flexible anti-smuggling teams and appointed some Customs officers who are devoted to the task of chasing up breaches of the law in this respect. I am glad to say that they have already had some success. Nearly every day they have managed to charge someone with this offence. I can give the Committee an absolute assurance that anyone who we have reason to suppose has brought goods across for sale will be hounded, and prosecuted when that is appropriate, to ensure that those who smuggle goods across and resell them feel the full strength of the law. They must be left in no doubt that this activity is illegal.
9.30 pm
The Customs have been enjoying a certain amount of co-operation from legitimate traders who realise the dangers. I welcome that; I encourage legitimate traders and members of the public who have information about offences of this kind to contact Customs and give them every assistance in this important aspect of their work.
I have covered most of the items mentioned by the hon. Member for Oxford, East, although a great many of them were well outside the terms of the amendments—which in any case should not commend themselves to anyone in the Committee.

Mr. A. J. Beith: I was rather struck by the Paymaster General's musical analogy—of harmony rather than unison. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who was struck by it too, would agree that we regret the decline in our nonconformist chapels of the practice of singing in four-part harmony and its replacement by the practice of singing in unison, which reduces the force and quality of the singing. When I thought about it, however, the analogy seemed slightly far fetched. Different factors are at stake in taxation.
My enthusiasm for the analogy was much greater than my enthusiasm for amendment No. 9. My lack of enthusiasm for that amendment was even more profound than that of the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who damned it with very faint praise. It would remove from the legislation what we already understand to be the law and practice in our relations with the Community in tax harmonisation matters, and it would not impose on us new and unjustified requirements of harmonisation.
I say that as one who shares the scepticism expressed around the Chamber tonight about undue tax harmonisation. The crucial phrases that will appear in the Act and which appeared in the treaty of Rome and our Single European Act commitments relate to harmonisation
to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary to ensure the establishment and functioning of the internal market".
That, and that alone, is justification for harmonisation. There is a powerful case for harmonising taxes if differing tax rates can be used to favour the goods of the home country as against those of the country in the Community seeking to export to that country. That is what it is for and, in the case of excise duties, it can be significant.
This is a difficult area to resolve—there are health and social policies at stake—but it is significant if a product made in the home country is taxed much more favourably than a potential substitute product imported from another country. All the arguments about wine, beer and cider come down to this in the end: how to avoid one country favouring its products at the expense of the products of other countries in a supposedly single market.
That consideration, however, does not bear on the sale of similar goods in any one country. If lawn mowers are taxed at the same rate at the point of sale, it does not make much difference if they are charged at another rate in another country—except to the extent that that promotes cross-border shopping. Up to a point, cross-border shopping is not all that deplorable. At least to some extent it encourages people to move around the Community and has brought many of our citizens to the realisation that, far from these islands being the sole civilised parts of the

world, there are many good things going on in other parts of Europe. People have become more enthusiastic about going there and enjoying them.
At some point, cross-border shopping becomes such a threat to the trade and industry of some countries that they are led, for normal market reasons, to seek to harmonise tax rates. That is the natural way in which tax harmonisation will be achieved, and it will occur if individual member countries think that it is not in their interests to maintain the disparity. To that extent, our ability simply to please ourselves about our tax rates is reduced by the amount of trade. However, we want trade and a single market will enable people to pursue it.

Mr. Michael Spicer: If the normal market arrangements would result in some form of normalisation, why do we need to have a law about it?

Mr. Beith: To a large extent, normal market operations will bring about the necessary degree of harmonisation. There are instances—I have quoted some from excise duties and there are also some in the VAT field—of countries preserving a differential to protect a home-produced product against competition from a similar, imported product. It would usually have to be because the products are slightly different but still capable of being substituted one for the other and serving the same purpose —perhaps of inducing a state of alcoholic cheerfulness or whatever. The denial of equal treatment for the imported product is normally what is at stake.
There have been profound differences of view between this country and the Commission about what is necessary for the achievement of the single market. The differences were widest when Lord Cockfield was at the Commission. When Madam Scrivener took over, a significantly more amenable attitude was apparent. The noble Lord Lawson of Blaby described the replacement of Lord Cockfield by Madam Scrivener as the replacement of an English dogmatist by a French pragmatist. That was the case. I found Lord Cockfield's attitude on this issue extremely dogmatic and, although it was elegantly expresssed, it was a quite unnecessary promotion of harmonisation. It is a pity that such a good servant of the European cause felt that he had to go so far over the top on this issue. I welcomed the subsequent changes of policy because they represented a much more realistic approach to tax harmonisation.

Dr. Marek: The right hon. Gentleman says that Lord Cockfield went over the top. Does he agree that Madam Scrivener understood what was necessary and that the necessary law for harmonisation relates to the bottom limit? Plainly, one needs a minimum standard rate of VAT to stop the bidding down of one country by another so as to favour its own goods.

Mr. Beith: I reiterate that if all similar products sold in a country are taxed at the same level there is no compelling need for harmonisation whether from the top or from the bottom. I can buy a newspaper or a book in this country free of VAT. I can choose either The Times or Le Figaro and my purchase is not influenced by different tax rates. There is no need for the Government to slap VAT on books or newspapers for there to be a free market in those goods. It is only when the lack of harmonisation distorts the marketplace in favour of the product of one country over another or if the amount of cross-border shopping is


great that a problem arises. In the first case, because the Government are normally trying to favour their own producers, it may be necessary for the Community to take action to secure harmonisation. In the case of cross-border shopping, it is much more likely that normal market considerations will lead the country concerned to say, "We are putting ourselves at a disadvantage and will have to modify our tax regime even if we might not otherwise have chosen to do so."
Those are the natural ways to proceed, and the article that we are discussing in no way impedes that process. I see no reason to change it, not least because it is already our law on the basis of our previous treaty commitments. It is quite unnecessary to amend the treaty in this way.

Mr. Michael Spicer: Three arguments have been adduced for voting against amendment No. 9. The first is that made by the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith)—that there is no need to vote on the amendment because it was tabled merely as a means to provide a good debate. That point was sharpened by the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) in a speech yesterday, when he said that the Committee was all about having little debates, not about trying to amend or change the shape of the Bill.
That is the Labour party's position, which is very much supported by the Government, because it suits them just to have little debates that proceed along regular lines and move the Committee stage on—but not too fast. The Government are committed to not having Third Reading before the Danish referendum.

The Chairman: Order. The pace at which the Bill proceeds is entirely a matter for the Chair; it is nothing to do with the Government or the Opposition. I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that. He has not been here for all the debates. He has been here for a fair number, but certainly not all. The amendments are fairly specific. Although we can debate indirect taxation, we certainly cannot debate when Third Reading may or may not take place, or any other general issue about Maastricht.

Mr. Spicer: I accept that, Mr. Morris. I only made that point as it was part of the reason given for voting against the amendment. The Opposition made the point that they did not want a vote on the amendment—they just wanted a debate. I was making a passing remark that that view was supported by the Government, because it is in their interests to keep the debate moving a little, but not to vote on amendments.
The second reason for voting against the amendment is that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who has been here for many of the debates. He said that it had all happened, everything had been done and article 99 was already in the treaty. A few commas may have been changed, but I accept that it is basically the same article that was in the main treaty. My hon. Friend felt that, because it was already in the treaty, there was no point in voting against the amendment. Confirmation of that view, if any were needed, is the agreement reached by Ministers on 27 July to harmonise VAT.
The Opposition have posed some interesting questions, and people are beginning to take note of some of the effects of this aspect of the treaty. The Opposition's questions to my right hon. Friend the Minister, as far as they went, were good. The general point was made that one learns by

one's mistakes. However, it is not a good or conclusive argument to say that, just because something exists, we should not at least consider whether it needs amending.
One thing that a treaty amending the mainstream treaty of Rome does is to give us the opportunity to amend the mainstream treaty if we do not like its provisions. There are at least one or two good reasons for seriously considering whether there should be an article in the treaty that provides for the harmonisation of indirect taxation, for whatever reason.
The market reason is not an especially good one. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) answered his own point. If there is an internal market and there are distortions in, for example, indirect taxation, there is at least an arguable case for saying that they will right themselves. Otherwise people will find themselves at an unfair advantage or a disadvantage and will set their own taxes in some kind of harmony—to use the phrase that has emerged during this debate.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that the present harmony of the natural harmonisation would mean the loss of £3,000 million on excise duties, which would have to be made up somewhere else, either through VAT or income tax? That is not a happy thing. A harmonisation of tax on alcohol and cigarettes on some base level would mean that the poor old Chancellor would lose £3,000 million, which he would have to find from somewhere else, and that somewhere else may be quite nasty. Therefore, it is not all sweetness, harmony and light, as the Liberal Democrats were trying to tell us.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. If he says that the figure is £3,000 million, it is. His figures are always impeccable. They are never questioned or doubted by spokesmen on either Front Bench. If there is any advantage in having a debate as opposed to voting on an amendment, it is that my hon. Friend and others bring out such facts which have not previously been appreciated by the Committee.
In considering whether article 99 is good or bad, one should consider whether it is good or bad for a nation state and a Parliament, sovereign still, responsible to its people, to give away a large chunk of its right to determine the balance of indirect to direct taxation. There will be great debate—

The Chairman: Order. I imagine that there will be great debate on that matter when we come to economic policy, but not under this amendment.

Mr. Spicer: I do not want to question your judgment, Mr. Morris, but we are talking about the harmonisation of indirect taxation. If laws are established to impose harmonisation on a Government, it is reasonable to argue that that forces upon that Government a choice in the balance between indirect and direct taxation. That is the point that I am making.

The Chairman: I understand the point, but it is out of order on this amendment. It may be in order when we come on to economic policy. If the hon. Member wishes to catch my eye on that occasion, I shall do my best to call him, but the matter is out of order on this amendment.

Mr. Spicer: I find that a strange ruling, if I may say so.

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry that the hon. Member finds it a strange ruling, but it is a ruling. I hope that the hon. Member will kindly observe it.

Mr. Spicer: I have probably made my point anyway, so I can move on.
Perhaps I could try this one on you, Mr. Morris. Part of the argument in favour of harmonisation—it was made by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, so I hope that you will allow me humbly to join in the debate —concerns the even playing field. I hope that that is in order, because that is the point that I want to address for a moment. The argument about an even playing field at least needs to be considered.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: It is an awful cliché.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend is right. All clichés need a little discussion from time to time.
If the even playing field argument is taken to its logical conclusion, we must invent sun for the whole of Europe and all grow olives. Where do we stop?
Anyone who is genuinely looking at Europe's trading future must take into account the concept of comparative advantage. That is what trade is all about. Different countries have sun and water—and different countries have different Government policies.

Mr. Dykes: In his previous argument, my hon. Friend remarked that he was concerned about the possible loss of sovereignty as a result of these processes. Why is it not a loss of intrinsic sovereignty for nations to agree similar tariffs between each other in international agreements, but a terrible loss of sovereignty for nations to agree harmonised or approximated indirect taxes?

Mr. Spicer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, in his usual helpful way, and I will address it in a moment.
As to even playing fields, a part of comparative advantage is the advantage that some countries have in the way that they are governed and the economic policies that flow from that. One snag in being an Italian citizen is that one does not pay direct taxes.

Mr. Dykes: Rubbish.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend says that that is rubbish, but he must accept that Italy's black economy is larger and more thriving than that of many other countries. As people do not pay direct taxes in Italy, it has indirect taxes. If one is a direct taxpayer, that is an advantage—but it is a disadvantage if one is an indirect taxpayer.
Why should the British, who are rather good at paying their direct taxes, suffer just because the Italians do not pay their taxes? Why must everything be evened out across an even playing field? Adam Smith's concept of trade was all about comparative advantage. It seems that we are talking about a trading bloc, and comparative advantage is important in that. If the argument is based entirely on even playing fields, as it so often is, it is in many respects specious.

Mr. Tim Smith: Is not my hon. Friend's argument against a level playing field an argument against the whole single market programme?

Mr. Spicer: Not at all. The original thrust, which I supported when I voted in favour of the Common Market,

was against direct trade barriers. It was never part of any argument to which I subscribed that one could invent some kind of Utopia, some might call it—I would call it a nightmare—having a single identity that was precisely the same in all its aspects.

Mr. Cormack: Did my hon. Friend vote also for the Single European Act?

Mr. Spicer: I did, and I am directly addressing that point. I conceded that article 99 is associated with the treaty of Rome, as amended by the Single European Act. I was making the point that one learns from one's mistakes. In this specific context, some of the implications of article 99 are very disturbing.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Perhaps my hon. Friend will ask my European enthusiast hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) to explain how on earth one can secure peaceful harmony on, for example, wine duty when in Britain it is 94p a bottle; in Spain, Portugal, Italy, Germany and Greece it is nothing; and in France it is 2p a bottle? How can harmony be peacefully applied in that case? It would mean slashing the dependence of the British Government on that duty and increasing taxes on items that people use and need.

Mr. Spicer: In answering that question, Mr. Morris, I must ask for your guidance as to whether or not you would rule that I am responsible for the remarks, feelings and thoughts of my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). I do not think I am, but the Chair may rule differently.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) makes an important and exacting point. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East is robust in his views. He is a great personal friend of mine, and one of the people who is honest about his intentions; he is a genuine federalist. Although I cannot really debate the matter with my hon. Friend because of his beliefs, there are others who believe that the Maastricht treaty is innocuous and is not leading in the direction that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East wants.

Mr. Marlow: A few minutes ago, my hon. Friend said that the levels of indirect taxation in Italy and the black economy there meant that we should have higher indirect taxation. It is possible with the development of Conservative philosophy that we shall decide to put all our taxes on expenditure and none on income, although we are not suggesting that at the moment.

The Chairman: Order. I have already ruled that the debate is not about direct taxation. Sadly, the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) was not in his place and probably did not hear me, but that is out of order.

Mr. Spicer: I agree with you, Mr. Morris. My hon. Friend and I will have this discussion afterwards. I wanted to talk about it, but you wisely ruled it out of order.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has only just come in. He has not listened to any of the speeches that have been made, and he is now leading the hon. Gentleman astray. Mr. Spicer.

Mr. Randall: rose—

Mr. Spicer: First, I give way to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall).

Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He normally speaks with clarity, but I must confess that I am utterly confused. Does he believe in harmonisation so that the single market can work, or, if not, what is his message to British industry if he does not believe in ensuring that there is a level playing field which relies entirely on some harmonisation in the single market?

Mr. Spicer: My message to British industry is that it should make use of the fact that we are now outside the ERM. We are allowed to have low interest rates, investment and productivity. British industry should go for it in a market which will have variety and, because we are stronger because we are outside the ERM, we can compete effectively against countries that are shackled by all the talk of harmonisation, social policy and high VAT.

Mr. Whitney: rose—

Mr. Spicer: I shall give way once more; then I must get on.

Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but I feel that he has not responded to the serious concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) about the difference between taxes on wine in France and here. Where in the Maastricht treaty, the Bill or the amendments are provisions requiring a British Government to lose the tax revenue which so concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East? Where is the provision which would have that catastrophic effect?

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East will no doubt pursue that point. However, I think he accepts that harmonisation would lead to some loss of revenue.
The problem about article 99 and the concept of harmonisation and the interventionist policies that would necessarily go with it is that it has to be seen in the wider context of moves towards central taxation as a matter of principle.
Because I have developed the point in previous debates, will simply reiterate that, with a single currency, because of the need to compensate for the problems that arise between different countries with different wage levels but with similar price structures as a result of that single currency, there must ultimately be single taxation and a single expenditure authority.

Mr. Quentin Davies: Does my hon. Friend recall any time, during the 50 years or more that we shared a single currency with the Republic of Ireland, when we had what he described as a single expenditure authority?

Mr. Spicer: I do not deny that there have been examples of different countries coming together with single currencies. My argument is—

It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion made, and Question put,

That at this day's sitting, the European Communities (Amendment) Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

The Committee divided: Ayes 285, Noes 238.

Division No. 130]
[10 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Alexander, Richard
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Amess, David
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Ancram, Michael
Evennett, David


Arbuthnot, James
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Faber, David


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Fabricant, Michael


Ashby, David
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Aspinwall, Jack
Fishburn, Dudley


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Forth, Eric


Baldry, Tony
Foster, Don (Bath)


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bates, Michael
Freeman, Roger


Batiste, Spencer
French, Douglas


Beith, Rt Hon A. J.
Gale, Roger


Bellingham, Henry
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Beresford, Sir Paul
Garnier, Edward


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gillan, Cheryl


Booth, Hartley
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Boswell, Tim
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bowden, Andrew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brandreth, Gyles
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brazier, Julian
Hague, William


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Nick


Butler, Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Heald, Oliver


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Hendry, Charles


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Robert


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Chapman, Sydney
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Churchill, Mr
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Coe, Sebastian
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Colvin, Michael
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Couchman, James
Johnston, Sir Russell


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Key, Robert


Devlin, Tim
Kilfedder, Sir James


Dicks, Terry
King, Rt Hon Tom


Dorrell, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kirkwood, Archy


Dover, Den
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Duncan, Alan
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dunn, Bob
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Knox, David


Dykes, Hugh
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Eggar, Tim
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Elletson, Harold
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman






Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Leigh, Edward
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lidington, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Luff, Peter
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shersby, Michael


Lynne, Ms Liz
Sims, Roger


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


MacKay, Andrew
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Maclean, David
Soames, Nicholas


McLoughlin, Patrick
Speed, Sir Keith


Madel, David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Maitland, Lady Olga
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Malone, Gerald
Spink, Dr Robert


Mans, Keith
Spring, Richard


Marland, Paul
Sproat, Iain


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Steen, Anthony


Mates, Michael
Stephen, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stern, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Sumberg, David


Merchant, Piers
Sykes, John


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Milligan, Stephen
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Mills, Iain
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thomason, Roy


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moss, Malcolm
Thornton, Sir Malcolm


Needham, Richard
Thurnham, Peter


Nelson, Anthony
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Tracey, Richard


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Trotter, Neville


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Norris, Steve
Tyler, Paul


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Oppenheim, Phillip
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Page, Richard
Wallace, James


Paice, James
Waller, Gary


Patten, Rt Hon John
Ward, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Pickles, Eric
Waterson, Nigel


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Watts, John


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wells, Bowen


Powell, William (Corby)
Welsh, Andrew


Rathbone, Tim
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Redwood, John
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Richards, Rod
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Riddick, Graham
Wigley, Dafydd


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wood, Timothy


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Yeo, Tim


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)



Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Mr. David Lightbown and


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


Sackville, Tom





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Ainger, Nick
Battle, John


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bayley, Hugh


Allen, Graham
Beckett, Margaret


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bell, Stuart


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Hilary
Bennett, Andrew F.


Ashton, Joe
Benton, Joe


Austin-Walker, John
Bermingham, Gerald


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Berry, Dr. Roger


Barnes, Harry
Betts, Clive





Biffen, Rt Hon John
Harman, Ms Harriet


Blair, Tony
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Blunkett, David
Henderson, Doug


Boateng, Paul
Heppell, John


Boyce, Jimmy
Hoey, Kate


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Home Robertson, John


Bradley, Keith
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Burden, Richard
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Byers, Stephen
Hutton, John


Caborn, Richard
Illsley, Eric


Callaghan, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Cann, Jamie
Jamieson, David


Cash, William
Janner, Greville


Chisholm, Malcolm
Jessel, Toby


Clapham, Michael
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)


Cohen, Harry
Jowell, Tessa


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Corbett, Robin
Keen, Alan


Corbyn, Jeremy
Khabra, Piara S.


Corston, Ms Jean
Knapman, Roger


Cousins, Jim
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Cox, Tom
Legg, Barry


Cryer, Bob
Leighton, Ron


Cummings, John
Litherland, Robert


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Livingstone, Ken


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Lord, Michael


Dalyell, Tam
Loyden, Eddie


Darling, Alistair
McAllion, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
McAvoy, Thomas


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McCartney, Ian


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Macdonald, Calum


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Denham, John
McLeish, Henry


Dewar, Donald
McMaster, Gordon


Dixon, Don
McNamara, Kevin


Dobson, Frank
Madden, Max


Dowd, Jim
Maginnis, Ken


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Mahon, Alice


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mandelson, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Marek, Dr John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Marlow, Tony


Eastham, Ken
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Enright, Derek
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Etherington, Bill
Maxton, John


Fatchett, Derek
Meacher, Michael


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Michael, Alun


Fisher, Mark
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Flynn, Paul
Miller, Andrew


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foulkes, George
Morgan, Rhodri


Fraser, John
Morley, Elliot


Fyfe, Maria
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Galbraith, Sam
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Gapes, Mike
Mowlam, Marjorie


George, Bruce
Mudie, George


Gerrard, Neil
Mullin, Chris


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Murphy, Paul


Gill, Christopher
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Godsiff, Roger
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Hara, Edward


Gordon, Mildred
Olner, William


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Graham, Thomas
Paisley, Rev Ian


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pawsey, James


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Pickthall, Colin


Grocott, Bruce
Pike, Peter L.


Gunnell, John
Pope, Greg


Hain, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hall, Mike
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hanson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hardy, Peter
Prescott, John






Primarolo, Dawn
Stevenson, George


Purchase, Ken
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Quin, Ms Joyce
Straw, Jack


Radice, Giles
Sweeney, Walter


Randall, Stuart
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Raynsford, Nick
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Reid, Dr John
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Trimble, David


Rooney, Terry
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Walley, Joan


Rowlands, Ted
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ruddock, Joan
Wareing, Robert N


Sedgemore, Brian
Watson, Mike


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wilkinson, John


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Short, Clare
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Simpson, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Winnick, David


Skinner, Dennis
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wise, Audrey


Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wright, Dr Tony


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spearing, Nigel



Spellar, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Mr. Alan Meale.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Spicer: Before the interruption I was engaged in a brief—and I mean brief—intervention.

The Chairman: Order. I must ask hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so quietly, and I hope that those staying will listen to the debate.

Mr. Spicer: As you, Mr. Morris, have ruled, this is a very tightly drawn debate on VAT harmonisation. I want to have article 99 removed. So, according to its amendment, does the Labour party. But it has now decided otherwise.

Sir John Cope: The amendment does not seek the removal of article 99; its purpose is simply to avoid the alteration to article 99 that the treaty makes, and that concerns only the economic and social committee.

Mr. Spicer: My right hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely right, and if what he has indicated were achieved, it would be helpful from my point of view. I concede that this is part of the existing treaty. The problem is that it is the thin edge of the wedge. The problem concerns the context of the Maastricht treaty. Someone said earlier in the debate that this was all in the Single European Act. Article 99 is not a bad example of the kind of text that might help us if we were to look at it in isolation. The words of the existing treaty are in some cases identical to those of the proposed treaty. But the words have to be looked at in context if the differences in their significance as between treaties are to become apparent.
In this case the context is the concept of a single currency. That is the core of the Maastricht treaty. We have been told that the pillars are there, that we are taking an important step forward in claiming back national sovereignty. But looking at things on an intergovernmental basis is not a great new backward step, as is obvious if one considers the context of the treaty and its new objectives. This was pointed out very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Duncan-Smith).

The new objectives of the Maastricht treaty must be related in the way that the European Court of Justice will undoubtedly relate them. Under Roman law—alien law —which is what we are going to have, it is the context of words, rather than the pure text, that has to be considered.
This is a learning process, but, in the past, British negotiators made the mistake of looking simply at the text of the main treaty and not considering the context. That was a very serious mistake. In some respects, the new law will supersede our domestic law. The context and objectives will be taken fully into account in a way that does not apply in British law. This is one of the fundamental problems that we face as we approach the treaty. The entire treaty, its context and objectives have to be taken into account. In this case we must consider the question of harmonisation in the context of a single currency, which, in my view, will lead to a single taxation system.

Mrs. Gorman: Before my hon. Friend leaves the discussion on VAT, I hope that he will apply his mind to its effect on small businesses. After all, one of the supposed desires of the Common Market is that small business shall flourish, yet VAT, being the most hated tax that the small business man has ever had the misfortune to have to collect for Government, has had a profoundly adverse effect on that objective. Would my hon. Friend like to apply a few of his thoughts to the effect of VAT on business and on the spirit of enterprise?

Mr. Spicer: I am extremely interested in that intervention by my hon. Friend, and I think that the whole Committee will be interested in it. If we compare our system of VAT with indirect taxation systems in other countries outside Europe, we see that my hon. Friend's point is a very important one. I have heard it argued that this is the real deterrent to capitalism, to innovation and to new business. But although it is a fundamental point that my hon. Friend has raised, and although it is important for it to be laid before the Committee, it is not the point that I was speaking about.

Mr. Marlow: The amendment does not talk about VAT; it talks about turnover tax. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) has said what a pestilence VAT is. We used to have purchase tax. Is it the understanding of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) that, should we wish to at a later stage, within this amendment we could go back to purchase tax? Or are we stuck with VAT?

Mr. Spicer: One of the thrusts of my argument is that Governments should be able to decide these things. I would disagree with most of the things that are said by Opposition Members about taxation. I am sure that they would be in favour of greater direct taxation, whereas, on the whole, most Conservative Members would favour greater indirect taxation in some form, although the points made against VAT are good ones. What I suspect is common to hon. Members on both sides who are worried about the treaty is that we believe that the House and our Government should determine these priorities. That is what lies at the root of my concern about the treaty when it is seen in its full context—and this particular article about harmonisation must be seen in a wider context.
We are moving towards a centralised form of federal taxation. If the single currency is to mean anything, it must


mean a single price system, accompanied, because the economies will not have converged—we will certainly not find the Greek economy converging with the German economy in time for any of these things to happen—by unequal wages. There will be, because it is structured into this treaty—this article is part of the process of centralisation—an automatic move towards a central taxation and expenditure system. It is my fundamental concern about the treaty. The instruments associated with it are undemocratic. The central instrument associated with it is to be the central bank—

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite aware, because the Chairman drew it to the Committee's attention earlier, that this is an amendment about indirect taxation, and the hon. Gentleman tends to stray from it. I hope that he will get back to the amendment.

Mr. Spicer: I understand that, Mr. Lofthouse, but the instrument associated with this particular amendment is the central bank, and it is ironic, on the day after—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The central bank can be debated in other amendments later on, when no doubt the hon. Member will have an opportunity to catch the Chairman's eye or mine.

Mr. Spicer: I understand that, Mr. Lofthouse, and I will not stray on this, but I beg you to accept the point that I am trying to make, which is that these textual points must be seen, are rightly seen and will be seen by the European Court in their wider context. One cannot debate these individual textual matters other than in their proper context. That is precisely the way in which the court will judge these matters. So it is very difficult and restrictive, and against the spirit of the new age and the new law that we are to have in this country.

Mr. Ian Taylor: May I help my hon. Friend back to his central point, which is to address this particular amendment? The reality is that VAT is still to be levied by the national Governments. Harmonisation is a single-market factor, which can be discussed in that context. He is talking about the resources of the Community. This question was dealt with effectively at the Edinburgh summit and the new budget arrangements now last through almost to the end of this century. That rebuts the point about centralised taxation; it is off the point of this amendment, which is entirely to do with what we have already confirmed in the House in the Single European Act, with the exception that now we are also to discuss with the economic and social council.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept that what we are discussing is indirect taxation, and will stick to it. If not, I shall have to rule him out of order.

Mr. Spicer: I understand and I am very grateful for the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Esher. For a very short time he was out of the Chamber when I addressed a point that he raised earlier in this context. His argument—which he has just repeated—it is that we should reject this amendment because it is already in the treaty. I am glad to be able to tell him that I do not accept that point. Just because it is in the existing treaty, that is

no reason for not taking the advice of Opposition Members and others who have made the point during the debate that one should learn by experience and by one's mistakes. Part of the argument for accepting this amendment is precisely that we have been able to learn by our mistakes. You would call me to order for repetition, Mr. Lofthouse, if I went over the arguments with which I supported that point, but my hon. Friend will be able to look at the record tomorrow and see how I developed my argument.

Mr. Skinner: Would it be fair to argue that if, for instance, we managed to rid ourselves of the yoke of the Maastricht treaty and some of the other things connected to the Common Market, this Parliament or another one would be able to levy taxation as it thought fit? There have been references to purchase tax. I would argue that it would be better to have a range of purchase tax rates than to have VAT. That is why I voted against VAT. That is why every Labour Member in the House at that time voted against it. So, in this new regime, assuming that we smash the Maastricht treaty, which is what we are here to do today—it may be that the Chair and others are not in that game, but we are—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The Chair is in no game, only to chair this debate quite impartially. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that.

Mr. Skinner: All I want to emphasise is that I want to be able to hear statements from any part of the Committee in favour of getting back to purchase tax. If we did get back to purchase tax, it would mean that the Bank of England, as opposed to a central bank, would have a say in the matter. That means that, if we do not get back to purchase tax and controlling matters in the House, it follows that we cannot talk about VAT unless we talk about the central bank, which is the idea within the Maastricht treaty. That is the point that I am making.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has made his point very clearly and it is one with which I agree. One of the reasons why the media will be turned on to what he has just said and why everybody will be writing about it tomorrow morning is that what he says in the Chamber matters still. The fact that he believes in purchase tax matters. Through the Executive, our Parliament still largely determines what form of taxation we have. The hon. Member for Bolsover is right to say that article 99 is a part of the process of losing control of our taxation system. Control of that system is a central aspect of a nation's sovereignty. I shall not stray too far, because I see that you are looking restless, Mr. Lofthouse, but in years gone by and on both sides of the Atlantic, taxation was considered to be the principal element of sovereignty to be fought for.

Mr. Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Spicer: Before I give way, may I say, Mr. Lofthouse, that I am trying to bring my remarks to a close.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend has extensive experience of the United States. Does he agree that the experience of harmonisation of VAT across Europe would not correspond to the position in the United States where there is a different sales tax in each state? Even according to the


objectives of the federalists in all parties, the proposed harmonisation will not work. I and my colleagues seek to ensure that we have our own system.

Mr. Spicer: All that I can say in response is that, at least at the moment, we are able to determine these matters. Some people want a purchase tax—indeed, I am coming to the view that there are great inadequacies in the VAT system, and the idea that it be harmonised for ever is disturbing for the reasons outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). There is no question but that the proposals contain highly bureaucratic elements which will greatly disadvantage the smaller companies.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I want to come straight to the specifics of indirect taxation and VAT. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that in Europe there is already tremendous pressure for the harmonisation of VAT and for us to abolish our zero rate by including items that are currently zero-rated among those covered by this country's standard rate. As an example, the inclusion of domestic heating oil would mean a huge additional impost on thousands of families in this country. It would inevitably increase wage demands and inflation. There is a great difference between various countries—the need for heating oil in Spain, Italy, Greece and Portugal is very much less than in north European countries. Such an impost, because of the culture of this country, would be intolerable. For that reason, harmonisation of indirect taxes would be a massive disadvantage to our people.

Mr. Spicer: That was a useful intervention. It enables me to say that on 27 July when we secured a great victory and managed to safeguard zero rating, we also conceded the principle of harmonisation at ministerial level. That is one of the problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is correct to say that there are exemptions that it would be extremely difficult—

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. At 10 pm we voted on whether to carry on, and we voted in favour. One of the reasons that the vote was carried was that the Liberal Democrats voted in favour but they have now gone missing. It is a scandal that people vote to continue beyond 10 pm but do not have the guts to stay—no wonder they are called Captain Mainwaring's army.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair, and the hon. Gentleman well knows it.

Mr. Marlow: Further to that point of order, Mr.Lofthouse.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I cannot take further comments on a point of order that never was. I call Mr. Michael Spicer.

Mr. Spicer: rose—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. There was no point of order.

Mr. Marlow: On a different point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.

The First Deputy Chairman: A different point of order?

Mr. Marlow: An absolutely, completely and utterly different point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I assume that the Government always keep you in the picture. Obviously there is now a coalition between the Government and the Liberal Democrat party—a Con-Lib coalition. I assume that you have been informed of that—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am having great difficulty in hearing the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Marlow: My point is simple but important, Mr. Lofthouse. Until recently hon. Members were not aware that a Conservative-Liberal coalition was running this country. In your important position—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order for me, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. Mr. Spicer.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse.

The First Deputy Chairman: Is it the same point of order?

Mr. Cryer: No, it is an entirely different one. This is a point of order for you, Mr. Lofthouse, because you have the power to suspend the sitting. May I request that you do so, so that, in view of the Liberal Democrats' recent vote, we can send for some of them to join the Committee?

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) may request that I suspend the sitting, but the answer is no. I call Mr. Michael Spicer.

Mr. Spicer: rose—[Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It is difficult to hear what the hon. Gentleman is trying to say. If the Committee would settle down a little we might be able to hear him.

Mr. Spicer: The Liberal Democrats have probably disappeared out of shame. The one word that cannot be used to describe the harmonisation measure is "liberal". It is illiberal, so that puts the Liberal Democrats in a difficult position.

Mr. Marlow: My hon. Friend will know, because he has studied such matters in great detail, that one of the major changes involving amendment No. 9 and article 99 is that, although—as usual—such matters are based on a proposal from the Commission, in this case not only was the European Parliament consulted, but so was the economic and social committee. In Labour-speak that is the social partners; in Conservative-speak it is the corporate state. Can my hon. Friend tell the House how important or damaging that involvement could be?

Mr. Spicer: It could be extremely damaging. My hon. Friend makes by implication the point that I should have made earlier.
In drawing my remarks to a conclusion, I shall address one of the arguments against my proposal. If the measure is seen within the broad context of the whole treaty, especially those parts of it that lead towards a single currency and, thus, in my view, towards a single taxation system, one of the arguments would be that we have opted out of the arrangments that might push us towards a central taxation system.
At least one of my hon. Friends has accused me of having rather sharp views on the British opt-out. I have


said that I do not really believe in it, because I cannot see how in practice one can set up all those institutions, get all that harmonisation going, and then opt out of it. I hope that I did not give the Committee the wrong impression. I cannot foresee any circumstances in which I would argue against maintaining the opt-out—but the force and weight of all the measures would be compounded one upon another. We are talking about a cumulative process, about adding extra centralisation. I know that my hon. Friends argue against that, but I suspect that we should be ruled out of order if we did so now. Yet the argument whether we are compounding the process of centralisation is crucial. I should dearly like you to allow us to argue it through a little now, Mr. Lofthouse, because the argument is certainly relevant to the subject of harmonisation.
I believe that all this is a process of centralisation. That process is apparently inexorable. If we take the terrible decision to ratify this treaty and then come later to debate an opt-out from it, we will face an enormous weight of argument along the lines that we face now—article 99 was all arranged in the past; it cannot be changed now. People will say, "Where were you, Spicer?", to which I will reply, "I was here, debating the matter." Nevertheless the force of future arguments will be that that the institutions have already been set up and the dispute is over.
This is why we need to debate these matters now. We should at least be able to argue them through. That is why I agree with the amendment. We need to revise the treaty so as to accommodate the lessons that we have learnt from passing previous legislation—

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend is developing an argument that should be deployed before a much wider audience than the one we have here tonight. The motivating force behind the European Community is the desire to widen the direct tax base. We have already come under pressure from Europe to do that. Heating oil is currently exempted and zero-rated. Food is another case in point. Most of it is zero-rated in this country. If we succumbed, as I believe that we inevitably would if the treaty were ratified, to putting VAT on food, the public revolt over the community charge would seem like a Sunday afternoon tea party by comparison. It would affect all our culture, customs and traditions, and it would disadvantage our economy. Any Government who were found guilty of imposing it would be kicked out of office at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. Spicer: My hon. Friend says, first, that it would be wrong to widen the European indirect tax base. Secondly, he says that it would be wrong to impose VAT on food. Whether or not I agree with him is not really the point. What matters is that my hon. Friend can contribute to debates on such policies as they affect our country. It is the removal of our powers to make decisions on taxation that we are really debating tonight. We are moving in the direction of a federal form of taxation—a hugely important matter of principle which goes well beyond issues of rates of taxation generally.

Mr. Llew Smith: We have had a long debate on the merits of direct and indirect taxes and on whether purchase tax is preferable to value added tax. I oppose both purchase tax and value added tax. I hesitate

to ask a Conservative Member of this House how a socialist can support value added tax.

Mr. Spicer: The hon. Gentleman speaks in a noble tradition. On the whole, the Labour party believes in greater direct taxation. That is why it loses most elections—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is in danger of tedious repetition. If he continues in this vein I shall have to consider asking him to resume his seat.

Mr. Spicer: I certainly want to conclude and shall shortly do so. The hon. Gentleman's belief in direct taxation is a matter for him. As I say, he may lose elections because of that belief, but that is a matter for the hon. Gentleman's conscience and his party. It is his prerogative to hold that view and make his own decision and I say, "Good for him." Soon, when everything moves to another place, his views will not matter any more because this place will have ceased to have power.

Mr. John Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I do not want to prevent any hon. Member speaking, but the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer), who has just finished his speech, spoke for about an hour on 13 January and for about an hour today. I do not question that, but I have spent two days trying to speak in a debate.I do not want to speak in today's debate and, therefore, have no personal interest in my point of order. In the interests of fairness, if in future I am competing with the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South, will I carry a clean licence whereas the hon. Gentleman will have some penalty points.

The First Deputy Chairman: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair takes all such matters into account.

Mr. Dykes: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Please do not think for a moment that I am questioning the Chair's judgment, far from it, but, inevitably, the incidence and fanaticism of the anti-Europeans in Committee—

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It will be difficult for me to rule on a point of order that I cannot hear.

Mr. Dykes: It is a genuine point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I shall rephrase my description and say that the incidence and presence of the anti-Maastricht debaters in the Committee makes it inevitable that they will have much more time to speak than pro-Maastricht hon. Members. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is getting close to criticism of the Chair. [Interruption.] Order. As the hon. Gentleman knows, any criticism of the Chair should be directed in the usual way. It is not good parliamentary practice to attempt to criticise the Chair under another guise. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to do that, but that is the way his point of order is coming across.

Mr. Dykes: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Lofthouse. I deliberately said that I was not doing that, because I said that the inevitable result—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot say that he was not doing that while continuing to do it.

Mr. Dykes: May I plead for a better balance between the pro and anti-Maastricht speakers?

The First Deputy Chairman: At the end of the day, the Chair will decide as fairly as possible. The debate is on a difficult subject and I shall continue to do my best and be as fair as possible.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. I should like some clarification. Am I right in understanding that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) withdrew his unparliamentary allegations against those of us who are critical of the Maastricht treaty?

The First Deputy Chairman: I am sure that he did.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Perhaps it would help the Committee and reassure the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) if you told the hon. Gentleman, who has been here longer than I have, that there is plenty of time in Committee and there will be opportunities for him to speak.

The First Deputy Chairman: That is right.

European Communities (Amendment) Bill

Spearing: I should like to speak to two of the amendments in the group tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and others. The first relates to the derogations on VAT —[Interruption.]

Mr. John Wilkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. Is it in order for hon. Members to chat across the Chamber?

The First Deputy Chairman: I have not heard anything untoward.

Mr. Spearing: Amendment No. 422, which refers to article 99, provides that it should not apply to
the ending of derogations permitting zero-rating of VAT".
Amendment No. 423, which refers to the same article, provides that there should be no
further harmonisation in respect of excise or other internal taxes.
Although I may be a little technical, Mr. Lofthouse, I hope to be in order because my remarks will be entirely related to both those taxes.
Before we discuss the merits of those taxes, it is important to explain a little about the history of VAT and its operation. Most Conservative Members entered this House at a time when they were already paying VAT. However, some of us remember the debates about the merits of VAT, which the Government of the day told us had nothing to do with entry to the Common Market, as it was then called.
There were heated debates on value added tax, especially on children's shoes—which are currently derogated from the sixth VAT directive. Indeed, the exchanges in those debates were even more heated than those to which we have just listened. The then hon. Member for Finchley—now Baroness Thatcher—was inveigled into the Lobby to vote against an amendment tabled by shadow Treasury Ministers to exempt children's shoes from domestic VAT. Such was the pressure on Conservative Members that even the noble Lady voted against derogation at that time.
That sixth directive was introduced in 1979 by a previous Labour Administration, interestingly enough under the signature of John Silkin, the then Agriculture Minister. One of the technicalities of the sixth directive was that it was passed not at a meeting of the Finance Council —no doubt the sort of meeting that the Paymaster General is used to attending—but at a meeting of the Agriculture Council. That directive, on which all these matters rest, was passed by the Agriculture Council. I have explained that as a point of information for the Committee because it shows the degree to which these matters are constitutionally complicated within the EC.
The sixth directive is still in force and it was referred to in exchanges between the Front-Bench spokesmen earlier. The Paymaster General reminded us that we are now in the third or fourth amendment to the sixth directive, which will last to 1996. Then, the whole matter is open to renegotiation. If I am wrong on that point, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will correct me. He knows that

there are so many complications in these matters that those of us who observe from the outside are not always absolutely right.

Sir John Cope: Technically, the hon. Gentleman did not express the matter quite correctly, but I do not think that the differences between the way that he put it and the facts of the matter are likely to be material to his argument.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Translation of these complicated matters is important for those who are listening to us or who may read our words. I shall try to use non-technical language.
The imposition of the sixth directive, which Britain is still under in its present guise, has not always been open.
Hon. Members will remember that, about half a dozen Budgets ago, the noble Lord Lawson, then the Chancellor of the Exchequer, introduced a Budget with a great mystery in it which related to VAT on building repairs. There was enormous concern about it on the Government Benches and particularly among charities and churches. Estimates of all sorts, including housing estimates, were put under question. No one could discover what that imposition of VAT on building repairs, which were hitherto exempt, was about.
The Select Committee on European Legislation took evidence from a predecessor of the Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), and we asked him about the imposition of VAT on building repairs. In a note to us afterwards, he agreed that that was due to some correspondence that he had had with the Commission, and pointed out that, under the sixth VAT directive, Britain was under an obligation to charge VAT on building repairs.
That was done subfusc, it was not publicised in any way and it came out only in a footnote to the evidence given by the right hon. Gentleman. I pay tribute to some of his work on the Finance Council. The Paymaster General will know something of that. The right hon. Member for City of London and Westminster, South did some sterling work and he admitted that as a fact.
No one in Britain at the time, or perhaps since, was aware that the imposition of that controversial tax was a direct result of the treaty and of letters passing between the Commission and the Treasury, making the Treasury change Britain's taxes without admitting the origin of the new tax.
That matter was not as open as matters are after the Budget when we go to the Vote Office to collect reams of paper with all sorts of details. Millions of pounds must have been paid then and since. There are similar incidents in relation to spectacles and construction. I think that I am right in saying that VAT has now been levied not just on repairs but on new construction as well. Subject to anything that the Paymaster General says, I believe that they stem from the same source.

Mr. Tim Smith: Was not VAT imposed on new construction following infraction proceedings against the United Kingdom in the European Court, introduced in the 1988 Budget and implemented in the 1989 Finance Act? I should have thought that that was all straightforward and above board.

Mr. Spearing: It was not done subfusc and secretly. If it was done on that occasion, as the hon. Gentleman


correctly, I think, reminds me, it was done as a result of a court action. But the origin of that tax and its enforcement was the same place. One tax was completely secret, one was completely open. But there can be no doubt that their imposition was against the wishes of the Treasury which fought it in the court, lost and had to come to the House and admit that that was what they were having to do. I see that the hon. Gentleman nods and I thank him for his correction. As I said earlier, I want to deal with these complicated matters in language that those outside can understand and so understand clearly what is at stake in this debate and in this treaty.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as a result of those wonderful infraction proceedings moved against the United Kingdom, the Avenue baptist church of Southend, a worthy organisation, having just raised more than £300,000 to extend the church premises for youth and other work for recreation, has been advised that it will now have to pay £65,000 in VAT? Is not that a matter of real concern? What good does it do for anyone, and what good does it do for our democracy, when we have simply to say to the Avenue baptist church, "I am terribly sorry, you may have raised all that money, but you will have to pay £65,000 to the Government because of infraction proceedings"? Surely it makes us look stupid to do something that is basically wrong and against all that is good in society.

11 pm

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield for emphasising that point, because references to the court have been made in recent debates—particularly in relation to coal, which I must not mention in this context; unless, of course, heating will be subject to VAT. In some parts of the Community, VAT is imposed on not just industrial heating—when it can be passed on as part of the VAT chain—but the heating of domestic premises. Coal and oil are very relevant in that respect.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is right. The court may think differently about certain cases. Is that consistent? It may be helpful in certain cases, but in others it may not. It certainly was not in the case of the construction industry, when the court ended the most effective derogation that we had at that time.

Mr. Leighton: When VAT was imposed on various forms of construction against the wish of everyone in this country, was that done at the same time that VAT was levied on health and safety boots and helmets for British

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend reminds me of that package, but I am not sure that was done at the same time. It was certainly at about the same period—and there was also shock, horror over a measure concerning spectacles. I distinctly remember a wave of two or three judgments coming to the notice of the House, and embarrassed Ministers at the Dispatch Box facing enraged right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House. We could experience that again and again and again, for reasons that I will state—and I suggest that the Financial Secretary cannot deny the possibility that the loss of derogation will continue. No one can prove that that will happen, but I shall explain why I believe that is very much on the cards.
Passing amendment No. 422 would put a stopper on all that. The Committee will have grasped by now, because the Chair made it clear, that this debate enables us to put a filter or stopper on any of the additional obligations that the treaty places on the House, the nation, Her Majesty's Government, and Her Majesty herself—who will no doubt become a citizen of the European union, as will any future British monarch. Amendment No. 422 would stop the future loss of derogations that we have gained and take it out of the ring in negotiations.
After the phase of derogational loss by a letter of infraction and court procedure, we saw the coming of the single market. Lady Thatcher sent a technician, Lord Cockfield, to Brussels, and he went about his work with a real will. Under the Single European Act he had been given the task of creating the single market by 1 January 1993. We had a long list of 295 regulations and vast numbers of suggestions and papers. Among them was a stringent proposal for harmonising VAT and excise duties.
During one of my visits to Brussels as a member of the Select Committee, I discussed those proposals with officials. The proposal for VAT was contemplated with some horror as many of the countries in the Community put VAT on food, water, public transport, heating and, above all, newspapers, books and magazines. Lord Cockfield said that if we were to have a single market we would have to harmonise all that.
In an earlier debate today, the Paymaster General very neatly made the point that harmony was sometimes more attractive than unison.

Sir John Cope: I said that they were different and tried not to take sides about which was more attractive in the musical sense. Later I was taken to task about which was more attractive in chapels. I made the point that they were different musically, but certainly in taxation harmony is more desirable than complete unanimity.

Mr. Spearing: I shall return to that later, as it is a helpful analogy, even in the unlikely sphere of finance.
Lord Cockfield produced a drastic proposal for the harmonisation of excise duty. There may have been some advantages to some countries involving petrol and diesel oil, but the biggest change affected alcohol. We all know the level of taxation on alcohol in certain of our continental neighbours. They are quite entitled to that and I do not blame them. They have different traditions, climates, crops, methods of farming and so on. As long as we do not have to pay for their surpluses, good luck to them. However, the duty they place on alcohol per degree proof is extremely low.
I was talking to an official in the Berlaymont building and I said, "Don't you realise what you are proposing? Our Exchequer gets something like £3,000 million a year from alcohol duty. If it were reduced to about £700 million, the effect would be enormous, not just on the Exchequer, because taxes would have to be raised elsewhere; we would have to raise income tax or increase VAT on a whole range of things. Perhaps you do not realise that in the traditions of our country that particular taxation has a social side."
He replied, "The social side does not matter. That is for the social and economic committee and the Social Council." At that stage, at least at the official level, there


was a lack of recognition that in Britain the excise duty has a multiple objective which, at least in principle, has the agreement of many people.
Most people in the Community found that the Cockfield medicine was a bit too strong and after a couple of years the proposal was withdrawn.
We have before us a proposal for two broad bands of VAT. One is for necessities, with a rate of 3 to 5 per cent., and the other is for a standard VAT target of between 12 and 20 per cent. At the stage when our rate was 15 per cent., we were in the middle and we regarded the position as satisfactory, as the Chancellor of the day did not have to increase the rate in the Budget. Now, with the rate at 17.5 per cent., he has less of a range within which to operate, but I must not try to anticipate his Budget.
In the proposals negotiated at that stage, we kept those derogations. But, as the Paymaster General agrees, they continue only until 1996. "Everything will be all right on the night," say the Government, "because the decision must be unanimous. Article 99 requires unanimity, which gives us a lock on the door," which the Home Secretary was keen to call a double lock.
If that lock is unlocked and the Government of the day pass through the door—nobody can be sure of the type of Administration who will be in office in 1996; I hope it will be the Labour party—they will face a dilemma. Whatever the reason for passing through the door, once they are through it, the door will be locked. Whatever the issue that led to our passing the lock—or passing the second lock to which the Home Secretary referred—no Government of their own volition will be able to change the position existing then.
It can be changed, but not just by a majority vote by friends who may agree with us. Remember, the people about whom we are speaking when we talk of "us" will not be us. They will be here 20, 30, 40—goodness knows how many—years in the future. We are legislating for people yet unborn who have not had a chance to vote. They will not be able to change the position.
Some people are inclined to say of us that we cannot achieve change, that we are like putty, that we come here to play and achieve little. I try to persuade them otherwise. Up to at least 1973 we could do something about legislation. Indeed, I had the privilege of making the last speech from the Back Benches on the European Communities Act 1972. No longer can we say, "Change the party, change the policy, go to your MP and get him to change it in Parliament."
Doors have been locked behind us one after another during the last 20 years. The occasions when we can make such statements to the rising generation in defence of representative democracy are growing fewer and fewer, just as their discontent is growing greater and greater, particularly in matters of taxation. That makes the amendment especially important. The position is not, as the Financial Secretary recently assured me, fully safeguarded. It is safeguarded only until 1996, after which it will be up for grabs.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my hon. Friend aware that I find the rising generation in my constituency very pro-European?

Mr. Spearing: Can I take this to the tax issue? I am not sure that they are very keen on European taxes, because,

I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), I do not think the rising generation in Linlithgow, Newham, Stepney, Beaconsfield, Aldridge-Brownhills, or in Harrow—and I see that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) is not here now —know very much about EEC taxation.
The bulk of EEC taxation is in VAT-related charges. I have one more point on 1996, but before that I give way.

Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend accept that whatever part of the country one visits, if one discusses the Common Market, as soon as one gets on to the common agricultural policy, which is a form of taxation amounting to £17 a week for every family in this country, people very quickly become disillusioned about the Common Market if they were not already?

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend has a good point because taxation of food was only introduced in this country in 1973, after we joined the Community.

Mr. Llew Smith: My hon. Friend mentioned parliamentary democracy. Listening to him, it seems to have little relevance to the taxation issue that we are discussing. I was listening to him and some other hon. Members some weeks ago when they seemed to imply that there was little democracy in terms of the regions and some weeks before that I heard some hon. Members saying that there was little parliamentary democracy about the central banks.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has been sitting here for some time and he will have heard me rule an hon. Member out of order for speaking about the central banks. This is about indirect taxation and he must stick to that.

Mr. Smith: I am responding to the point which my hon. Friend made about the importance of parliamentary democracy. I was going to make the point that I represent an area which is famous for Chartism and recently celebrated the history of the Chartist struggle for the right to vote.

The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member may wish to do so, but that is nothing to do with this amendment.

Mr. Spearing: Taxation and representation go together. If the Chartists were not very keen on taxation, they were keen on representation.
That brings me to the other point about 1996, and the fundamental change that is almost bound to come then in some form or other. We have been told by the Home Secretary and the Paymaster General about the double lock. They said that it was a unanimous lock, and that we could do something about it. Indeed previous Ministers, including Baroness Thatcher, often said that it was unanimous and was therefore okay, implying that we had to get agreement before there would be any change, and she or the Minister in a Department would not budge on anything because it had to be unanimous. It was a sort of black ball in reverse. If one did not get agreement, stationary would be the position. That is the implication we have had, time and again, even at the time of the referendum. No British Minister in Brussels—

Mr. Quentin Davies: The hon. Member is always well informed on European Community matters and I listen to him with great interest, but I do not share his Doomsday fears about British democracy. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member can think of nothing better than personal insults, it shows a tremendous bankruptcy of ideas.
To return to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), he accepts the principle of the single market and of the free movement of goods within that single market, I think. Does he not acknowledge that inevitably, if one has a single market of that kind, the extent to which member states' indirect taxation rates can vary is necessarily constrained and that that is necessary for economic reasons? Otherwise there is price arbitrage created by consumers and we are already facing an element of that with the tobacco and alcohol purchases across the continent. If the hon. Gentleman wants a single market, as I believe he does, will he acknowledge that a de facto move towards greater equality of indirect taxation is inevitable?

Mr. Spearing: I will reply to the hon. Gentleman's main thesis when I have completed the next section of my argument, which concerns the importance of VAT within the financial structure of the Community. I think that you will agree, Mr. Lofthouse, that that is central to our consideration, and additional to the points that I have already made. I must, however, make one factual point now: I do not think that I have ever gone on record as being in favour of the single market. [Interruption.] Well, I must have expressed my opinions in a very muted way. I am glad to say that the reason for that no longer exists, and I can now be absolutely frank.
I have never been in favour of the European Community, as set out in the treaty of Rome; I am in favour of a real European community, which is not in the treaty of Rome. That is a long-standing belief of mine, which I shall be happy to debate with anyone at any time, especially in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). Of course the hon. Gentleman is not too worried about the demise of democracy, which is already proceeding apace in this country, mainly because of the European Communities Act 1972.

Mr. Michael Spicer: On a point of order, Mr. Lofthouse. About half an hour ago, in another point of order, the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) asked you to take into account the fact that he was never called. I think that he added that I was often called—although I have been called only three times in about 11 debates. Should it not also be taken into account that the hon. Gentleman is usually not present? I have just looked across at the Opposition Benches, and noted that he is not present now.

The First Deputy Chairman: I have already ruled on that point of order. As I said then, the Chair takes everything into consideration.

Mr. Spearing: The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding is here, however—which reminds me of a conversation that I had with an eminent banker. No doubt the hon. Gentleman, who I believe is also a banker, is not too worried about the demise of democracy, as some of my hon. Friends and I see it. In the Maastricht treaty, taxation and banking are closely related, and we seem now to have a Government of bankers, by bankers, for bankers.
Was not the Prime Minister a banker? And the Secretary of State for Transport? They, and the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding, are not too worried, because the treaty favours bankers. The hon. Gentleman is a thorough believer in the conspiracy theory of history. I am not; I believe that people who occupy a privileged position through statute in their own nation will always seek to extend that advantage.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The hon. Gentleman is dealing very gently with my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding (Mr. Davies). The whole basis of this part of the treaty is the subject of our debate. The hon. Gentleman accepted the contentions of the article, expressed in the form of an assertion by my hon. Friend, as if they were fact; in truth, they are false coinage.
We are discussing why it is necessary for a common market to require harmonisation of tax levels. No economic theory asserts, as has my hon. Friend, that such harmonisation is a prerequisite to the achievement of a market: we have seen that in the United States and elsewhere. So please bash him down!

Mr. Spearing: I love bashing bankers, and I have done so on occasion; but one must deal with other hon. Members on an equal basis, without having one's cheque book handy or one's mortgage around one's neck. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I told the hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding that I would deal with his point at the end of my speech. I said that, in the meantime, I would deal with two other matters —what will happen in 1966; and the part that VAT plays in the financial structure of the Community.
Following some refreshing exchanges, I come now to the question of what will happen in 1996. I have referred to the oft-repeated remark of the noble Baroness Lady Thatcher and her Ministers that everything would be all right on the night because we had the veto. But what happens in practice? Conservative Members have memories, and two of my hon. Friends who were Ministers know what went on.

Mr. Cryer: Three.

Mr. Spearing: Yes, three. I do not always associate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South with these things. I am sure that if I have got this wrong, the three former Ministers will put me right. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) not only agrees with what I am about to say but has related spicy anecdotes to back it up.
It is not simply a question of the Council of Ministers sitting round a table; it is also a question of the pyramid of officials in the various offices, including the committee of permanent representatives, a reference to which, incidentally, appears somewhere in the treaty. Certainly there are now more committees of officials. What do they do? And what does the Foreign Office do? The internal department of the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister's office are co-ordinating all the time.

Mr. Cryer: Four Ministers.

Mr. Spearing: Yes, four Ministers. They know all about it.
What happens when important negotiations take place? Do they confine themselves to the narrow issues involved, as, under our procedures, we attempt to do? Members of


the House of Commons are able, individually and collectively, to separate issues from one another. Of course, there have to be deals in respect of certain matters. I do not know how far common sense extends, but it is at least apparent. But what happens when there is to be a big Community deal on finance? Are such things as airport slots and agriculture entirely irrelevant? Of course not. When representatives get round a table at Holyrood or the Champs Elysées, these things come together.
Let me give an extraordinary example relating to finance and taxation. The rebates negotiated by the then right hon. Member for Finchley, Mrs. Thatcher, at Fontainebleau about 10 years ago were presented as a great triumph for her. A short time previously the Heads of Government met at Stuttgart and issued a solemn declaration on European union. When these matters come up for debate in 1996, other issues will be on the table. Is the Minister to tell us that the continued derogations for which his successor will fight will be isolated and considered purely on the merits of taxation policy? Are we to be told that that Minister will not deal with some other treaty that is up for renewal at that time? In fact, he will have to deal with an across-the-board package. Nobody can pretend that there will not be a range of considerations involved in some sort of deal. Taxation, because it is money, will play a very important part.
It would be a matter of what is possible. If any hon. Gentleman of any party, who is in a position of ministerial responsibility at that time, thinks that he can get away with a certain derogation on something that will not raise the ire of the populace as much as something else might, he may as well deal that card in order to get something else. That is the way that finance and other matters in the Community work, and everybody knows it.
11.30 pm
That brings me to the question of VAT within the Community itself. There was a time when everybody thought that 1 per cent. of what was spent in VAT went to the Community; some people still think that. Do hon. Members remember the ceiling that Lady Thatcher came up against, and instead we had an intergovernmental agreement to raise the money? It is no such thing: it is 1 per cent. of a VAT assessment. The assessment is not the amount that we get; it is an assessment by the Commission and the finance officers of the Community of the VAT-able turnover of the country. They say that we should pay across 1 per cent. of that figure. If we do not put VAT on some of the derogated items, as we do not, we have to make up through some other form of internal transfer the money that we have received in the Exchequer through VAT. In other words, VAT as an income and as a tax is not directly linked with the VAT assessment made by the Community, but the amount of money that we can raise and devote to that end is.
My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, if I may have his attention for a moment, asked about his young people there. I wonder whether they know how much of their equivalent of VAT goes to the EC. I can tell them: about £4,000 million a year, in 1991 values, went to the EC in 1992. In broad terms—the Paymaster General may be able to confirm this when he replies, as I hope he will—it is somewhere between 10 and 12 per cent. of the VAT take. It varies up and down, according to the basket of the ecu

and the level of sterling. I assume that what has happened is that, as sterling has gone out of the exchange rate mechanism and we have rather less, the amount that we are having to put across in our VAT contribution to the Community will be rather less than it once was. But in 1992 it was around £4,000 million. I will quote all figures in 1991 values, for reasons that I will make plain in a minute.

Sir John Cope: I did not want to interrupt the flow of what the hon. Gentleman was saying, but the net contribution to the European Community in recent years has been about £2,000 million. The hon. Gentleman should compare that with the yield of value added tax in this country which, last year, was just over £35,000 million. He was drawing attention to one part of the way in which the contribution of member states to the Community is calculated, the so-called third resource, which is done on what, to use shorthand, I would describe as a kind of artificial VAT base, that is, one which is calculated, as he indicates, on the same basis for each of the countries. An adjustment is done to the figures to make sure that it is done on the same basis for each country.

Mr. Spearing: I am very grateful to the Paymaster General who, like his predecessors—and I must say that —has been a rather different order of Minister in these matters, perhaps because finance is an exact mathematical matter and it is less easy to change the nuances in financial matters than it is in others. I am grateful to him because that is what I was coming to.
When we completed the transition period and had the full finance going, VAT contributed, I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree, about one third of our contributions to the EEC. At that time Customs levies were the biggest resource that we paid over, but he will also agree, I think, that the net figure, which he correctly quoted, is a result of what is paid over compared to what is coming back, adjusted by the Berlaymont abatement.
I am coming to that, because I think the figures ought to be advertised, particularly the VAT ones, since they are not generally realised, even by the strongest critics of the European Community and its finances. They really are quite startling.
I will take the 1972 figures, again quoting in 1971 values. I have had these calculated by the Library, which has also provided me with a wonderful graph, which puts it all even more simply than words, but I cannot show it visually.
The figures show that £4,000 million went to the EEC from VAT and £1,600 million from Customs, and from the gross national product—the fourth resource, I think—broadly £1,100 million, making a total contribution of £7,000 million. That was our 1972 contribution to the EEC. But the receipts—and of course the bulk of those were in the agricultural fund—amounted to only £2,900 million: less than half our contribution; indeed, only three quarters of the VAT-related contribution. That was all we got back. There was a deficit, therefore, of £4.2 billion. That was our imbalance. We were net contributors, after the rebate, of £4.2 billion.
It is true—and Treasury Ministers always mention it —that that was after the rebate, but the rebate, of course, if I am correct, is also on leasehold. The rebate has been successfully maintained, but it is coming up again, if not in 1996, not very long afterwards.

Sir John Cope: All this has nothing to do with article 99, or the amendment, or anything that we have been discussing this evening. It has to do with the contribution to the European Community. However, the hon. Gentleman will no doubt be pleased to learn that at the Edinburgh summit a short while before Christmas the United Kingdom abatement was extended to the end of the century. Thereafter, of course, another decision will require to be made.
He may also like to know that the third resource, the VAT resource, was reduced in its importance by various extra restrictions, which it would be improper of me to go into at this point. But if he consults the evidence that I gave only yesterday to the Treasury and Civil Service Committee, when it is published in due course, he will see some more details. The proportion of the Community contribution which is to come from the VAT resource in future will reduce over the period of the financial perspective—that is to say, between now and 1999.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Paymaster General for giving us that information. I said that I knew that it was some time in the future. He has now told us that our VAT-related contributions will be going down, but of course the amounts may well be rather big. I was rather surprised, his having agreed with me the net figure of £2.4 billion after abatement, which he mentioned himself a little while ago, at his reaction to my going through the figures, because it is not possible to find them very easily.

Mr. Leighton: Is my hon. Friend saying that we are sending vast amounts of taxpayers' money to Brussels, where they are translated into 11 languages, as it were, and that a small proportion of them is returned to us? Surely we are subsidising countries that are much richer than the United Kingdom. Is this true?

Mr. Spearing: I shall not go down that road, Mr. Lofthouse, because if I were in your position I would pull myself up. I say only that this year about a third of what we contributed was paid back. That is without the Fontainebleau arrangement.
The hon. Member for Stamford and Spalding has challenged me by saying, "You can't have a proper and common single market without a single system of taxation." I think that that was the burden of his remarks.

Mr. Quentin Davies: With respect, that is not what I said. I was not suggesting that any formal harmonisation was required. I said that if we agree that there should be a free exchange of goods across frontiers without controls and restrictions and that my constituents and the hon. Gentleman's, for example, should be able to go to France, Belgium or Germany to make their personal purchases and bring them back to the United Kingdom—I thought that he agreed with that liberal development, but perhaps he does not—we must agree also that the corollary of such a single market is that the scope within which individual member states can vary their rates of indirect taxation must, de facto, be reduced by market pressures. People will not cross the channel or drive hundreds of miles to save 1 or 2 per cent. on the price of goods, so some variation in indirect taxation will be possible and sustainable. That is what happens in the United States. On the other hand, people will travel long distances to save themselves 10, 15, 20 or 25 per cent. There is that market constraint. That is

what I was talking about. That is very different from formal and deliberate harmonisation, which I do not believe is necessary.

Mr. Spearing: But article 99 says that it is necessary, and that is something which the hon. Gentleman clearly supports. However, I do not agree—I was grateful for the intervention of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) earlier—with the hon. Gentleman's premise. Instead, I believe in common sense in the face of article 99 and variations in VAT or excise duty. It is in that light that the amendments are designed to protect the people of the United Kingdom, and that protection could he forthcoming. The acceptance of the amendments would mean that the Government would be instructed by Parliament to say, "We shall go along with article 99 as long as it means that we do not have to have any more derogation losses on VAT. We shall go along with article 99 as long as there is no further harmonisation of excise."
It is not necessary to take these matters to the degree of a mathematical level table. The Community has said, "We shall get as reasonably close as we can to a unified system on the basis that it is a mechanism that does not distort the market very much in practice." In other words, it is willing to make a compromise. That is the position that the Community has reached.
That brings me to harmony. It is said that we can achieve what are considered to be the benefits of a single market without frontiers and barriers—I happen to think that such benefits do not exist—by bringing together different notes to produce the whole. It is said that there is no need for that to happen in unison. In other words, we do not have to lose our derogations from VAT on necessary items and we do not have to put up with the harmonisation of excise duties. That is why I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will support the amendments.

Mr. Tim Smith:: It would be nice to be able to say that this has been an illuminating debate, but I fear that there has been some obfuscation—some deliberate and some voluntary. However, the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) gave us an illuminating account of the history of value added tax in the European Community.
Article 99, as amended by the treaty, makes no significant difference to that article as it appears in the Single European Act. It merely adds consultation with the Economic and Social Committee. If one reads the reports of the debates on this subject in 1986, one finds that the fears expressed then are similar to those being expressed now. The only substantial change in VAT since 1986 arises from the infraction proceedings to which I referred earlier.
Those proceedings were based on the sixth EC VAT directive of 1977, which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. That directive was agreed by the previous Labour Government, and the hon. Gentleman told us that it was agreed by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I was not aware of that, but it could explain a great deal. It is that directive with which we have to deal, and it is based on the original article 99 of the treaty of Rome.
Even with the Single European Act, article 17 of which amended the original article 99, there has been very little change to the treaty of Rome. Therefore, in many ways,


this debate is irrelevant, because the Maastricht treaty makes no substantial change to the arrangements of indirect tax harmonisation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer)—

Mr. Wilkinson: Just because the provisions in the proposed treaty on European union differ only in minute detail from those already enacted in the Single European Act is no reason not to examine them critically or to draw sensible conclusions, especially as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer consciously forwent the perfectly sensible, independent option of lowering VAT, if necessary below 15 per cent., in favour of adopting a European directive requiring a minimum level of 15 per cent. That was the first instance in recent days of the potential damage to the Treasury's independence which the provision encapsulates.

Mr. Smith: I was about to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South had made that very point, that it was perfectly legitimate to scrutinise these issues again. He was straightforward in saying that he had previously got it wrong—he had voted for the Single European Act and article 99 as amended by article 17 of the Single European Act, but he was now worried about what might happen in the future.
I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) is in the same position, and I do not dispute the fact that it is perfectly legitimate to scrutinise the proposals again. My point is that similar fears were expressed in 1986, and the only substantial change which has taken place since is that to which I referred.

Mr. Cash: Answer his point.

Mr. Smith: If my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) will be a little patient, I shall come to that.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Address the Chair.

Mr. Smith: I apologise, Mr. Lofthouse.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to the recent agreement reached by the Council of Ministers on a minimum standard rate of VAT of 15 per cent., but that does not arise from the Maastricht treaty. It has nothing to do with the treaty but arises from the existing article 99. I read the record of the debates that took place then. We should remember that article 99 is subject to unanimity. During the Second Reading of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1986, my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford said:
We tend to exaggerate the dangers of majority voting. We live in a global economy but have to keep our interests ahead of other people's. We must have regard to our own interests while working in the EC."—[Official Report, 23 April 1986; Vol. 96, c. 378.]
I am sorry that he does not feel the same now. Very little has changed in the intervening period—all that has changed in relation to VAT is the decision of the European Court.

Mr. Cash: I do not depart from one word of what I said then, and I repeat it. There are a tremendous number of benefits to be derived from the single market, but the

difficulty is the way in which it is being manipulated, and the Commission's complete failure to subscribe to the rules, so that we frequently operate on illegal treaty bases. That throws up considerable doubt, which the Select Committee on Trade and Industry is now investigating.

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. That is in no way concerned with direct taxation.

Mr. Smith: To return to the subject of indirect taxation, when the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) moved the amendment, which would have no significant effect—

Mr. Marlow: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Smith: I think that I had better press on.

Mr. Marlow: May I make a brief but important point? My hon. Friend says that all that stuff about indirect taxation and VAT has to be decided by unanimity. We all know that our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not want to agree a minimum rate of VAT at 15 per cent. Yet, despite the fact that he did not want to agree, and despite the requirement for unanimity, that rate was agreed.
Does that not point to many sections of the treaty which require decisions to be made by unanimity but on which, despite the fact that the Committee is told that we shall have safeguards and that there will be no majority voting, the Government will be pressured into making decisions that they do not want to make?

Mr. Smith: Unanimity means that, if the Government take the view that our vital national interests are at stake, they will not make the concession that other members of the Council are making. In this particular case—

Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Smith: I am trying to answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), and I am only halfway through doing so —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] But I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) in due course.
What was the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North asked about? Oh yes, it was about unanimity. If the Government thought that our vital national interests were at stake, of course they would use what is effectively a veto. But in this particular case, our standard rate of VAT is 17.5 per cent., and I do not believe that the Government have any intention of greatly reducing it, so there is no practical effect.

Mrs. Gorman: Will my hon. Friend explain to me how the Chancellor's decision on the 15 per cent. base rate could possibly help this country, when, as a result of it, the horse racing industry, for example, is decamping to Ireland, where the rate is 2.5 per cent.? Why does unanimity appear to apply to us but not to our competitors?

Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend has my total sympathy; I agree with her. It is not our Government but the Irish Government who are at fault, and the matter should be dealt with by the European Commission. The hon. Member for Oxford, East referred to that matter, among other things. It is important, but it does not arise directly from the amendment, which the hon. Member for Oxford,


East said was a probing amendment—[Laughter.] That is what the hon. Gentleman said, and the amendment has enabled us to have a useful debate. But now we should agree to throw it out so that we can have article 99, as amended, in the treaty. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree to that.

Mr. Denzil Davies: My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) made a marvellous speech which showed a complete grasp of the technicalities of VAT, but I must correct him on one matter—not only for myself but on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who chaired those wretched meetings which finally arrived at the sixth directive. Perhaps we were all in the agriculture Committee—I do not know. Brussels is a funny place at 3 o'clock in the morning, and one sometimes does not know exactly which Committee one is in. Perhaps one final comma was approved at the end of the day by John Silkin in the agriculture Committee. I assure the Committee that we had night after night of discussion on that wretched VAT directive.
We have also heard about a purchase tax. It is perfectly in order, Mr. Lofthouse, to discuss indirect taxation. The article mentions turnover tax, which is probably VAT, and goes on to mention other forms of indirect taxation. I tend to agree with hon. Members who feel that VAT is not the best form of indirect taxation for the European Community. Some time ago Treasury civil servants were asked by the Japanese Government to go out to Japan to advise the Japanese Government on whether to introduce the kind of VAT that operates in the Community. I am told—this is all hearsay—that those civil servants had to consult Ministers on whether to go. Treasury Ministers were apparently enthusiastic that the permanent secretary to the Treasury should go to Japan. Some Ministers believed that one way of stopping the Japanese economic miracle in its tracks would be to export this crazy tax—which was invented by a French tax inspector and a German philosopher a long time ago.
The Japanese, clever people that they are, did not fall for it. They have no intention of introducing VAT; nor has the United States—

Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is too regressive.

Mr. Davies: Precisely. The pass was sold on this one. The Labour party voted against it in 1972, but the pass was sold. The tax is convenient for the EEC, but it will put Europe at a disadvantage in the competition that it faces and will face from Japan and other Asian countries, and from the United States.
So much for the history. We are saddled with the tax now, even though it is bureaucratic and rather inflexible.
I, like many other Members, have some dificulty with article 99. Either it is terribly important, or it is not important at all. My problem is with the words
within the time limit laid down in Article 7a".
As has been said, article 99 of the Maastricht treaty is not really different from article 99 in the treaty of Rome—except that that talking shop, EcoSoc, as we used to call it, has been incorporated in the new article 99. That is fine; if it wants to discuss these matters, no one objects.
Meanwhile, article 8a, in which the time limit is supposed to have been laid down, has become article 7a.

The treaty of Rome used a capital "A"; this treaty uses a little "a". I suppose that lawyers would call that "de minimis", but we should not worry unduly about it.
At all events, article 8a—now 7a—gives the time limit as 31 December 1992, by which time all the harmonisation was to be carried out to ensure the establishment and the functioning of the internal market. As far as I can tell, once we have reached 31 December 1992, the article becomes defunct. Perhaps the Paymaster General will be able to tell me that I am wrong. Unless I am greatly mistaken in my interpretation, however, the article should not be included at all. It seems that the clever guys who drafted it have made a mistake—

Mr. Wilkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman, who has one of the best legal minds in the House, elicit from the Financial Secretary a definitive answer to this important question? It will be germane to the whole debate on these amendments. Will he ensure that the Financial Secretary replies soon, and specifically?

Mr. Davies: The Paymaster General and not the Financial Secretary will no doubt reply to the debate. If we are right we can all go home and need not have this nice debate about VAT and unanimity or about the future of democracy or anything else. Perhaps I should move to another issue.

12 midnight

Sir John Cope: I can explain now rather than leave it until later. The passing of the deadline does not in any way invalidate—it would be wrong if it did the measures already passed, starting with the sixth directive and others which are based on article 99. Therefore, that article needs to continue after the deadline. The single market must continue to function effectively. There is case law to show that the passing of a deadline in a treaty article of this kind does not remove the obligation on Community institutions to take action which is prescribed within the deadline. I would not be surprised if in future hon. Members and people elsewhere in the Community draw attention to matters of indirect taxation which need to be based on article 99.

Mr. Davies: The Paymaster General has given the game away. He said that the obligation is to carry out the orders of the article within the deadline. I do not know what happened to the obligation, but the deadline has passed.

Sir John Cope: I have just explained to the right hon. Gentleman that the obligation does not end with the passing of the deadline: it continues and, as I said, there is case law to that effect. We and the other members of the Community have done our best to put the system in place. It is largely in place, but corrections and refinements may need to be made in future, and we need the treaty base to do that.

Mr. Davies: The obligation was to do something within the deadline, and the deadline was 31 December 1992. The Paymaster General can cite as many precedents as he likes, but that deadline has passed and the obligation can no longer exist.

Sir John Cope: The obligation remains. The primary obligation was to achieve as much as we could by the deadline. As I have already explained, there are perfectly good precedents, case law and all the rest of it, which the


right hon. Gentleman can look up if he wishes, to continue the obligation insofar as it has not been fulfilled by the deadline, should that be necessary. In addition, article 99 is needed because it is the basis of the sixth and other directives. The right hon. Gentleman is not being as sharp as usual on legal matters.

Mr. Davies: The right hon. Gentleman cannot get away with that. We all know that the sixth directive exists and that steps can be taken without any of these measures because countries can get together and agree to amend the sixth directive and to harmonise. I do not care what case law says because there is no need to go to case law. The document states in clear language that the obligation is to do something by 31 December 1992. That deadline has passed and, as the condition precedent for the obligation is that the actions have to be completed by 31 December 1992, the obligation no longer exists.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Dame Janet. You will have heard the exchange between the right hon. Gentleman and the Paymaster General, who has said that there are precedents for what is being done. Does the Minister not have an obligation, in this case if nowhere else, to present the precedents to the Committee, failing which may I ask you to suspend the sitting?

The Second Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair, although it would make an intervention.

Mr. Davies: I do not want to labour the point. As I understand it, the article was incorporated into the Single European Act and provided for certain things to be done by the date when the internal market came into operation on 1 January 1993. It makes perfect sense against that background. It was inserted into the treaty of Rome because the Single European Act was inserted into the treaty of Rome. Then, someone did not get it quite right, so somebody else said, "We must put EcoSoc in there." Nobody really noticed that it was defunct because 31 December had gone.

Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman is making a brilliant speech and raising many practical points. Has he noticed that article 99 merely provides that we should carry out that form of indirect taxation
to the extent that such harmonisation is necessary
to assist the internal market? Therefore, the arrangements being proposed by the Government are not necessary. Not only is the right hon. Gentleman right about the fact that the obligation had to be fulfilled by 31 December 1992, but it is not necessary anyway to go down this route to achieve the Government's objectives.

Mr. Davies: I agree that to some extent what is necessary is a subjective matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) was terrified of even considering a vote on the amendment because he said that it was a wrecking amendment. Apparently, the whole of the Maastricht treaty would be destroyed if the Committee dared to remove this wretched article 99, which does not mean anything anyway. Terrible things would happen and the whole of western Europe would collapse. My hon. Friend began to sound like the Minister of State, Foreign and

Commonwealth Office discussing the social chapter yesterday. "It is terrible", he said, "we shall have to have a conference." Of course, it might last only 30 seconds.
I am becoming worried about the Con-Lab pact; my hon. Friends are sounding more and more like Ministers. That is extremely worrying for Back Benchers. I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East to go for a vote on the amendment this time. The whole of Europe will not collapse. Mr. Kohl will not be on the doorstep of No. 10 tomorrow morning berating the Prime Minister about it. They will call an intergovernmental conference, it will last 30 seconds and they will sort it out. It is not really important, so why suggest that it will wreck the treaty?
Let us suppose that the matter is important. I do not believe that it is, but the Paymaster General has a large brief and he believes that it is important. He has spent a great deal of time going back and fro to Brussels to discuss these wretched VAT directives. He has to believe it to be important. How on earth could he do his job if he did not?

Sir John Cope: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I would not have taken the job if I did not believe it to be important, and I do. It was necessary to create the single market and now it is necessary to ensure that it functions effectively. Article 99 is all about it functioning effectively and we need to retain it to ensure that it continues to do so, especially with regard to the matters that we are discussing.
The right hon. Gentleman did not correctly understand some of the remarks made earlier by his hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) and by some Conservative Members, including myself. If the amendment were carried, it would not remove article 99 from the treaty. Its only effect would be to insert EcoSoc into our deliberations, which a few minutes ago the right hon. Gentleman said he would be happy to accept.

Mr. Davies: I understand that and I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to sound patronising, but he is an excellent Minister. He understands VAT. He is an excellent accountant. His law is a bit weak, but he is a good accountant. I am sure that he works hard. Customs and Excise has done well in trying to put into operation some of the complicated rules that have arisen.

Mr. Michael Spicer: My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has said that the amendment will not remove article 99, but the amendment says that it will.

Mr. Davies: The Paymaster General did not mean that.

Mr. Spicer: That is why I am asking. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) can give a good interpretation of what my right hon. Friend meant. But he said twice that the amendment will not remove article 99 when it says that it will. I do not understand the point that he is getting at.

Mr. Davies: The Paymaster General meant that if we remove the present article 99 we shall still have the old article 99, but EcoSoc will not be in it; it will be either article 8a or article 7a—I am not sure.
We have also discussed the binding obligation of the directive whereby we are now apparently not allowed to reduce VAT below 15 per cent. That may be the only time that a British Government have agreed to a binding directive—it may be only until 1996, although that is not


clear either—denying the House the opportunity to reduce a major tax below a certain level. That is a substantial derogation from the sovereignty of the House.
In theory, we could reduce the tax below 15 per cent. in a Finance Bill, but any importer, exporter or business man in Britain who suffered damage as a result of that would be able to take the British Government to court and eventually the case would wind its way up to the European Court and the British Government would lose. An action was recently brought against the Italian Government for not carrying out a directive on redundancy payments and the Italian Government lost. Therefore, we have lost our sovereignty, certainly until 1996.

Mrs. Gorman: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is an attempt to eliminate VAT between countries —to have a zero rate? However, the complications are such that the directive comprises 650 pages of closely typed instructions which business men on both sides of the transaction are supposed to read and understand. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that that will help or hinder matters?

Mr. Davies: That makes it more complicated. That is part of the Government's problem. That is why Lord Cockfield or the Commission later suggested that the tax should be charged at the point of production.
That binding directive is a major derogation from the sovereignty of the House. During the passage of the European Communities Act 1972, we were told that all taxation directives would have to be passed in the House through a Finance Bill, but even if we do that through a Finance Bill, it still does not mean that we have any real power. If a Finance Bill contradicts a directive, we can be taken to court. I do not think that a Finance Bill is even necessary. The detail of the directives is lifted in detail into the Finance Bill. Anyone practising in the VAT sector now has to look at the directive itself because the courts construe the directive.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman highlighting the totally unsatisfactory nature of the European Community processes inasmuch as the Council of Ministers will agree something which merely has to be ratified by the House. He referred to the minimum rate of VAT. The House never debated that with the opportunity to reverse it. The Government of the day, with its supporters here in a majority, would have said that we were letting them down if we went back on what they had agreed in a nice cosy little Council of Ministers. This place is becoming irrelevant. The British people no longer have a Parliament of their own.

Mr. Davies: We shall be told that this is a wrecking exercise. Perhaps the Paymaster General can advise the Committee whether this legally binding directive, which will prevent Britain from reducing VAT below 15 per cent. and from taking other action, will appear in this year's Finance Bill. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is in purdah, but perhaps he can say whether it is likely that the directive will be incorporated in a Finance Bill.

Sir John Cope: No.

Mr. Davies: Will the House be able to debate and amend a directive which will be legally binding?—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] So the hon. Member for Macclesfield

(Mr. Winterton) is right. We cannot amend much of the Bill either, because when we attempt to do so Members on both Front Benches say that we are trying to wreck the Bill. The Committee can debate but not amend a rule which will continue to exist until at least 1996, that VAT shall not be reduced below 15 per cent. That is a further derogation from the power of Parliament to make changes.
I have totted up those derogations. Under monetary union, we shall have no control over interest rates. Neither shall we have any control over public expenditure—and now taxation. Those are all matters over which Parliament and the Government will have little control. That may have one good effect—we shall not need as many Treasury Ministers. Once we reach 1996, we shall not need four or five Treasury Ministers, though we shall need a Paymaster General to write the cheques.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: The right hon. Gentleman is right. We must see this in the context of the Government and their allies—members of the Labour Front Bench—being intent on building a European state with all the attributes, taxation and absolute rights which will enable it to determine such matters. That is all that the Bill is about. It is a major step on the way to acquiescence by the British people, through their leadership, in accepting new institutions and national arrangements—the Eurofed.

Mr Davies: It is a Eurofed which will not even have the virtues of a federal system. I do not want to be out of order and to prolong the debate on that ground, but we are transferring powers to non-democratic bodies having no Executive recognised by the people.

Mrs. Gorman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Committee the benefit of his extremely intelligent analysis? He will recall that the Government of the day used VAT for their own convenience, whacking on 2.5 per cent. to mitigate the effects of the community charge. That is a very cynical use of a tax which we were given to understand was meant to be imposed on services and goods, but which is apparently used sometimes for the benefit or convenience of contributing nations in dealing with their domestic difficulties.

Mr. Davies: That is something like hypothecation, is it not? The Paymaster General was not listening, but the Treasury does not like hypothecation—so in effect it hypothecated 2.5 per cent. for local taxes.
It is said that there must be unanimity. As many right hon. and hon. Members have argued, that may sound good in theory but in practice it is not so easy for a Minister or a Government to stand up against the 11 other member states. The Maastricht agreement had to be unanimous. The British Government had a veto, and if they had shown any courage and vetoed the treaty it would have collapsed completely. I do not believe that many other countries were too keen on it either, but the momentum carried it forward. That is a purely personal view—and no doubt an eccentric one. The agreement was not vetoed because the pressure was so great that one country could not really veto it. It will be the same with taxation. We cannot use the veto. It is like firing off a nuclear deterrent: once it has been used, the deterrent has failed. So I do not believe that the unanimity rule will be very helpful.
I predict that in 1996 we shall be moving gradually towards a system of VAT being collected at the point of production and not at the point of consumption. The Paymaster General said very little about it but, as I understand it, the British Government were opposed to proposals that VAT should be imposed at the point of production instead of at the point of consumption or importation. The German Government were in favour, of course, for the simple reason that Germany is a country of producers and Britain is a country of consumers.

Mr. Timothy Wood (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 202, Noes 65.

Division No. 131]
[12.20 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Dover, Den


Alexander, Richard
Duncan, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Elletson, Harold


Amess, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ancram, Michael
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Evennett, David


Ashby, David
Faber, David


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fishburn, Dudley


Bates, Michael
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bellingham, Henry
Freeman, Roger


Beresford, Sir Paul
French, Douglas


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Booth, Hartley
Garnier, Edward


Boswell, Tim
Gillan, Cheryl


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bowden, Andrew
Gorst, John


Bowis, John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, Andrew


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Harris, David


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hawkins, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hayes, Jerry


Burns, Simon
Heald, Oliver


Burt, Alistair
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butler, Peter
Hendry, Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Horam, John


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Chapman, Sydney
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clappison, James
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jack, Michael


Couchman, James
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Dalyell, Tam
Key, Robert


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Day, Stephen
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Devlin, Tim
Knox, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)





Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Leigh, Edward
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lidington, David
Sims, Roger


Lightbown, David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Soames, Nicholas


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Luff, Peter
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spink, Dr Robert


Macdonald, Calum
Spring, Richard


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sproat, Iain


MacKay, Andrew
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maclean, David
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Stephen, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stern, Michael


Marland, Paul
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sykes, John


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Merchant, Piers
Temple-Morris, Peter


Milligan, Stephen
Thomason, Roy


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thurnham, Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Nelson, Anthony
Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Trotter, Neville


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholls, Patrick
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waller, Gary


Norris, Steve
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ottaway, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Watts, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Pickles, Eric
Whitney, Ray


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Rathbone, Tim
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Richards, Rod
Wigley, Dafydd


Riddick, Graham
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Wolfson, Mark


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wood, Timothy


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Yeo, Tim


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)



Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sackville, Tom
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Shaw, David (Dover)





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Knapman, Roger


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Barnes, Harry
Leighton, Ron


Bennett, Andrew F.
Livingstone, Ken


Betts, Clive
Lord, Michael


Blair, Tony
Loyden, Eddie


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
McMaster, Gordon


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Mahon, Alice


Burden, Richard
Marlow, Tony


Cann, Jamie
Michael, Alun


Cash, William
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Miller, Andrew


Cryer, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'l'nd)
Murphy, Paul


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Pike, Peter L.


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Dixon, Don
Primarolo, Dawn


Enright, Derek
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)
Rowlands, Ted


Gill, Christopher
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Simpson, Alan


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Skinner, Dennis


Hall, Mike
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Heppell, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Spearing, Nigel


Jessel, Toby
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Sweeney, Walter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)






Vaz, Keith
Wise, Audrey


Wareing, Robert N



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Alan Meale and


Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)
Dr. Tony Wright.


Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 39, Noes 196.

Division No. 132]
[12.31 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Mahon, Alice


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Marlow, Tony


Barnes, Harry
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Bennett, Andrew F.
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Cann, Jamie
Rowlands, Ted


Cash, William
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Gill, Christopher
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Sweeney, Walter


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Hall, Mike
Wilkinson, John


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Hunter, Andrew
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Jessel, Toby
Wise, Audrey


Knapman, Roger



Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Leighton, Ron
Mr. Bob Cryer and


Lord, Michael
Mr. Alan Simpson.


Loyden, Eddie





NOES


Adley, Robert
Cope, Rt Hon Sir John


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Couchman, James


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Amess, David
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Ancram, Michael
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Arbuthnot, James
Day, Stephen


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Devlin, Tim


Ashby, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Dover, Den


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Duncan, Alan


Bates, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Bellingham, Henry
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Booth, Hartley
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Boswell, Tim
Evennett, David


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Faber, David


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Fabricant, Michael


Bowden, Andrew
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bowis, John
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Brandreth, Gyles
Fishburn, Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Freeman, Roger


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
French, Douglas


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Burns, Simon
Garnier, Edward


Burt, Alistair
Gillan, Cheryl


Butler, Peter
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gorst, John


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Chapman, Sydney
Hague, William


Churchill, Mr
Hampson, Dr Keith


Clappison, James
Hargreaves, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Harris, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hawkins, Nick


Congdon, David
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Heald, Oliver


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heathcoat-Amory, David





Hendry, Charles
Robathan, Andrew


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Horam, John
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jack, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Sims, Roger


Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Key, Robert
Soames, Nicholas


Kilfedder, Sir James
Spencer, Sir Derek


Kirkhope, Timothy
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Spink, Dr Robert


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Spring, Richard


Knox, David
Sproat, Iain


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Leigh, Edward
Stephen, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Stern, Michael


Lidington, David
Streeter, Gary


Lightbown, David
Sykes, John


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Luff, Peter
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Temple-Morris, Peter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Thomason, Roy


MacKay, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maclean, David
Thurnham, Peter


Maitland, Lady Olga
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Mans, Keith
Trend, Michael


Marland, Paul
Trotter, Neville


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Merchant, Piers
Viggers, Peter


Milligan, Stephen
Waller, Gary


Mills, Iain
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Waterson, Nigel


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Watts, John


Nelson, Anthony
Wells, Bowen


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Whitney, Ray


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Wigley, Dafydd


Norris, Steve
Willetts, David


Ottaway, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Paice, James
Wood, Timothy


Patnick, Irvine
Yeo, Tim


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Pickles, Eric



Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Richards, Rod
Mr. Nicholas Baker.


Riddick, Graham

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Timothy Wood (Lords Commissioner to the Treasury): I beg to move, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

SEAT BELTS

That the draft Motor Vehicles (Wearing of Seat Belts) Regulations 1993, which were laid before this House on 10th December, be approved.—[Mr. Wood.]

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 9.

Division No. 133]
[at 12.47 am


AYES


Adley, Robert
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Alexander, Richard
Fishburn, Dudley


Amess, David
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Ancram, Michael
Freeman, Roger


Arbuthnot, James
French, Douglas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Garnier, Edward


Ashby, David
Gillan, Cheryl


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bates, Michael
Gorst, John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Betts, Clive
Hague, William


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hargreaves, Andrew


Booth, Hartley
Harris, David


Boswell, Tim
Hawkins, Nick


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hayes, Jerry


Bowden, Andrew
Heald, Oliver


Bowis, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brandreth, Gyles
Hendry, Charles


Brazier, Julian
Heppell, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Horam, John


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Burden, Richard
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Burns, Simon
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burt, Alistair
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Carrington, Matthew
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Cash, William
Hunter, Andrew


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Chaplin, Mrs Judith
Jack, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Churchill, Mr
Jessel, Toby


Clappison, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Congdon, David
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Conway, Derek
Key, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Couchman, James
Knapman, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dalyell, Tam
Knox, David


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Leigh, Edward


Devlin, Tim
Leighton, Ron


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lidington, David


Dover, Den
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Duncan, Alan
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lord, Michael


Elletson, Harold
Luff, Peter


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Macdonald, Calum


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
MacKay, Andrew


Faber, David
Maclean, David


Fabricant, Michael
Mahon, Alice





Maitland, Lady Olga
Spencer, Sir Derek


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spink, Dr Robert


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Spring, Richard


Merchant, Piers
Sproat, Iain


Michael, Alun
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Milligan, Stephen
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Stephen, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stern, Michael


Nelson, Anthony
Streeter, Gary


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sweeney, Walter


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sykes, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Norris, Steve
Thomason, Roy


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trend, Michael


Pickles, Eric
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pike, Peter L.
Vaz, Keith


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waller, Gary


Richards, Rod
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Waterson, Nigel


Robathan, Andrew
Watts, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wells, Bowen


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wiggin, Sir Jerry


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wilkinson, John


Sackville, Tom
Willetts, David


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Yeo, Tim


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Simpson, Alan



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Ayes:


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Mr. Andrew Mitchell and


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Mr. David Lightbown.


Soames, Nicholas





NOES


Barnes, Harry
Skinner, Dennis


Corbyn, Jeremy
Wise, Audrey


Cryer, Bob



Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Tellers for the Noes


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mr. Alan Meale and


Loyden, Eddie
Dr. Tony Wright.


Mahon, Alice

Question accordingly agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Deputy Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1993

LONDON UNDERGROUND (KING'S CROSS) ACT 1993

Ministerial Responsibility

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I am grateful to Madam Speaker for having selected this subject for the Adjournment debate. I am asking the Government to respond to the case that I am making because I believe that the rights of the House are being steadily eroded by the Government's actions. It is extremely important that we try to call a halt to what is being done.
The House, with its votes, can make and unmake Governments. Right hon. and hon. Members have no power and no privileges as individuals. It is right that we should have no privileges other than the two rights that we have as elected Members. Those two rights are exercised on behalf of our constituents. One is the right of completely free speech in the Chamber and in the relevant parliamentary documents which accompany our work in the Chamber. The other is the right of access to Ministers.
Ministers derive their authority from the House and should be accountable to it. It is an inalienable right of our constituents that we, on their behalf, should have access to Ministers. We should have the right to go to a Minister and to ensure that he is compelled to consider the needs and interests of any or every citizen in the land, whatever his or her status or occupation.
The right of access is an issue which affects every right hon. and hon. Member, regardless of political party, but the Government are steadily eliminating that right and are consequently diminishing the rights of the House, of individual hon. Members and of the constituents whom they represent. In so doing, the Government are diminishing parliamentary democracy.
The Government are engaged in a massive transfer of responsibility from Ministers into the hands of executive agencies. Previous Governments of both parties have sometimes made individual transfers of responsibilities, but nothing has been done on the scale of what this Government are engaged in. Labour Governments created publicly owned industries which were not directly responsible to Parliament for their day-to-day operation, but the nationalisation of those industries made them more publicly accountable than they had been, because they had previously been privately owned and had no accountability to Members of Parliament. Of course, privatisation has ended even the former limited accountability that public ownership provided. When some of my right hon. and hon. Friends recently met the President of the Board of Trade to discuss redundancies at British Aerospace, he made it clear that he had no power and he washed his hands completely of any accountability of that industry to Parliament. More and more Ministers are now washing their hands of responsibilities to the House for which, until recently, they were fully accountable to the House.
In the past four and a half years, responsibility for numerous Government activities affecting many millions of our citizens has been hived off to 78 so-called next steps agencies. They range from the Building Research Establishment to the Central Science Laboratory, from the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland to the social security Benefits Agency. Two hundred and thirty-eight thousand people are employed by those agencies and, what is more,

the Government have plans to establish 29 more, employing 109,000 more people. Huge areas of Government activities are being removed from Ministers and transferred to unaccountable bodies headed by officials who are generously—often over-generously—recompensed. Rights are being taken away from hon. Members in the process.
Until recently, hon. Members had the right to table parliamentary questions on individual cases and to get a ministerial reply. Now, what we get—and it took a battle to get that—are letters from heads of agencies, which are published in Hansard. My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) gave me a substantial pile of letters that he has received in place of what should have been ministerial replies to him.
What is more, by doing that, the Government are eroding the rights of Parliament in another sense because until now only Ministers, as Members of Parliament, had access to Hansard. Now, non-parliamentarians have access to it.
Furthermore, Members of Parliament have the right to write letters to Ministers and receive replies from them —or rather, Members of Parliament used to have that right. Now, instead of a Member writing to a Minister, as he has always been able to, and receiving a ministerial response, the Minister simply acts as a postbox, passing on the Member's letter to an agency which may—or, it has to be said, very likely may not—reply.
The postbox function is not confined to next steps agencies. The Secretary of State for Health simply passes on letters about Members' constituents' health problems to a health authority or a trust. The Home Secretary passes on immigration cases, to which he used to reply, to immigration officers, so that hon. Members who accept that practice have to haggle demeaningly with civil servants rather than argue with Ministers, as is a Member of Parliament's right. The Foreign Secretary passes on immigration cases within his purview to something called an immigration correspondence unit, which was set up by Lord Howe when he was Foreign Secretary.
Instead of an individual's case ending up on a Minister's desk, with the Minister, whether or not he or she bothers to read the letter, having to sign it and so take responsibility for its contents, that individual and his or her poverty, needs or suffering are swept off the Minister's desk and out of the Minister's mind.
I do not know why we need so many Ministers to do so little work, for that evasion of parliamentary responsibility is being carried out by members of the largest Government this country has ever had—with 111 Ministers of various ranks. The biggest Government in this country's history are doing less and less work more inefficiently, and at higher and higher costs.
The gradual transfer of responsibilities to agencies and units may or may not be irreversible. I hope that it is not. But the evasion of ministerial responsibility and accountability to the House is not irreversible. I am determined to play what part I can in reversing the trend. One individual Back-Bench Member may not have power, but he can be a nuisance. I am determined to be a nuisance to the Government—not for the sake of protecting my own status, whatever that may be. That is of no importance whatever to me.
When Lord Howe was Foreign Secretary I argued with him when he tried to pass off my letters to his immigration correspondence unit, and he very sulkily wrote to me


saying that he was ready to reply to me if I insisted on my status as a member of the shadow Cabinet. I wrote back saying that that was not my purpose at all. My purpose was to ensure that a Member of Parliament has the right of response from a Minister. For the sake of protecting the rights of my constituents, I intend to continue a campaign which may, I hope, have some success.
From time to time, it may be in my constituents' interests for me to contact the local office of some agency, as I have done in the past. That is for me, representing the constituents who have sent me here, to decide. But when I decide that it is in the interests of my constituents, who have sent me here to serve them and to protect their rights, to contact a Minister, I shall do so, and I shall expect a response from a Minister and from no one else. I have made it my firm practice to send back to Ministers any letters that I receive from agencies to which my constituents' cases have been sent, and to insist on a reply from the Minister to whom I have written. I am pleased to say that some Ministers are responding in a forthcoming manner.
The Home Secretary is now responding to cases that I send him—and not only to immigration cases. When last month his office wrote to tell me that a constituent's passport problem that I had sent him had been forwarded to the Passport Agency, I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was him whom I wanted to hear from. Last week he wrote confirming that he would respond to me.
I also acknowledge the positive response from the Secretary of State for Employment with regard to the agencies hived off from her Department. She replies to me on these matters. So does the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with regard to the immigration correspondence unit. When he recently sent one of my cases to the unit, I sent him his letter back and told him that I wanted to hear from him. He writes to me.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer has gone much further and I give him full credit for acknowledging the rights of Members of Parliament. Last month, on behalf of the Chancellor, the Paymaster General wrote a letter to every Member of Parliament concerning Members' correspondence on subjects relating to the work of agencies. He said that letters will be forwarded to the agencies for reply "unless, of course, you"—that is, the Members of Parliament—
indicate that you require a Ministerial reply.
He made it clear on behalf of Treasury Ministers that a Member requiring a ministerial reply would get one. He said the same about other agencies: that the letter will be referred
to the agency Chief Executives to reply direct, unless, of course, you indicate that you require a Ministerial reply.
That last is underlined in the letter. I give the right hon. Gentleman full credit for recognising that he has a responsibility to Members of the House.
In accordance with this policy, I received a letter in the past few days from the local Customs and Excise office in Salford, making it clear that while the official concerned is ready to reply to me about my cases, if I want a ministerial reply I wil get one. That is good. I give the Chancellor all credit for acknowledging his accountability to the House.
I have also written to the Prime Minister praising the Treasury's practice and asking him to instruct all Ministers

to follow it. The Prime Minister customarily speedily acknowledges all letters that I send him, and replies as soon as he can. Curiously, in this case he has neither acknowledged nor replied to the letter that I sent him last month or the reminder that I sent him last week. I am aware of the Prime Minister's great courtesy in respect of ministerial correspondence and I am confident that he has not ignored my letter—that would be wholly uncharacteristic of him. I hope that his delay in replying is due to his careful and positive consideration of the proposal that I have made: that all Ministers in all Departments be instructed to respond to Members of Parliament in the same way as the Chancellor and Treasury Ministers do.
Such response is necessary because some Ministers are still determined to act as overpaid post boxes. By far the worst of these—I saw him during the Division a few moments ago—is the Secretary of State for Social Security. I have made it clear to him that I do not wish to hear from the agencies to which he forwards my letters against my wishes. I have made it equally clear to the principal culprit, Michael Bichard of the Benefits Agency, that I do not wish to hear from him. Yet both carry on—the one dodging his responsibility to Parliament, the other sending me letters against my will, which I then send back to the Secretary of State, as I have advised him I shall continue to do.
I do not know who is the more arrogant—a Secretary of State who regards himself as above Parliament, or the unaccountable head of a quango who insists on writing to a Member of Parliament when that Member does not wish to receive communications from him.
It so happens that Mr. Bichard is unbelievably inefficient. He is paid £79,000 a year to make decisions affecting the lives of the poorest in our community, and he makes a botch of his job—losing files, making mistakes all the time, taking months to reply and helping to plunge further into despair some of the most desperate and despondent members of society.
Any other Minister would sack Mr. Bichard; so would any private enterprise employer. But this Secretary of State regards him as a convenient receptacle, enabling him to avoid his ministerial responsibilities to Parliament, for which I am sorry to say he appears to have little or no regard. I hope that the Prime Minister will require that Secretary of State and all others like him in the Government to conduct themselves in the democratic manner that the Chancellor and other Ministers are accepting. It may be difficult and strange for the Secretary of State to conduct himself in that manner, but I hope that the Prime Minister will lay down standards for all Ministers.
No doubt from his lofty height the Secretary of State and those like him may regard my stand on this issue as petty and finicky. After all, what does it matter who sends a letter, he may ask. If he does not understand that, he does not understand parliamentary democracy. Democracy in this country will not be destroyed in one blow—our people are too attached to democracy to let that happen—but the erosion of democracy through the erosion of the rights of Parliament is taking place now and emerging in its place is a corporate state. Some 346 years ago Thomas Rainbrough said:
The poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he.
Parliament is more important than any Member of Parliament, whether he is a Back-Bench Member or a Minister. We all have our day and then pass on.
I have sat in the House for 23 years and, with the consent of my constituents, I hope to sit here for many more. I do not intend to sit here quietly and allow the rights of my constituents to be stolen away from them.

Dr. Tony Wright: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) for raising this important issue. He speaks for the whole House and it is appropriate that a junior Back Bencher should say thank you to a very senior if recently returned Back Bencher for raising issues that go to the heart of what the House does and what our system is about. I think that we all feel that what might be called arm's-length accountability is beginning to develop in the system. When we try to raise issues we are directed away from Parliament. My right hon. Friend spoke about that in relation to agencies, but it is happening on almost every front.
This week I tried to ask questions about constituents who have been denied hospital treatment, and I was referred to contracts being made by health authorities which have an arm's-length relationship with Ministers. That is happening across the whole spread of Government. Ministers appoint people to bodies that are no longer directly accountable to the House. When we seek to ask questions about the health service or schools we are directed somewhere else, and when we ask about public utilities we are directed to regulators and told that they are concerned with such matters from now on. New bodies are being created to carry out whole tracts of public administration but, increasingly, those bodies have no direct accountability.
By addressing the issue, my right hon. Friend is getting hold of a thread that is beginning to unpick the nature of our system. Something called ministerial responsibility is supposed to define what goes on here, but in so far as Ministers are becoming ever less responsible, the basis of the system is beginning to erode. It is significant that almost everyone who commentates on the British system points to the erosion of accountability of Ministers to Parliament. The system of ministerial responsibility is being transformed into a system of ministerial irresponsibility. That will soon be the way in which the text books will begin to describe what is happening to our system. This week senior figures in the civil service are beginning to talk about fragmentation and the dissolution of accountability in the system.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for raising an issue which I hope we will pursue on other occasions. The issue certainly will not go away; it will become central to what Back Benchers will want to argue about their role here.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. Robert Jackson): I welcome this opportunity to put clearly on the record the Government's position on ministerial accountability to Parliament in relation to the agencies that now constitute more than half the civil service.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that the rights of the House were being eroded. The point to make at the outset is that we are not talking of anything new in accountability to Parliament. The next steps programme, establishing executive agencies

within government, was launched in 1988. In its first report on the next steps programme, which covered the very subject of this debate, the Treasury Select Committee said:
We certainly do not advocate abandoning the principle of ministerial accountability, but modifying it so that the Chief Executive who has actually taken the decisions can explain them, in the first instance. In the last resort the Minister will bear the responsibility if things go badly wrong and Parliament will expect him or her to put things right, but the process of Parliamentary accountability should allow issues to be settled at lower levels, wherever possible
That report reflects clear all-party support, both for the next steps programme and for this approach to handling its operational consequences. Moreover, the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), is on record talking to the Royal Institute of Public Administration in May 1991. He quoted approvingly from the 1968 Fulton report the doctrine that:
To function effectively, large organisations, including government departments, need a structure in which units and individual members have authority that is clearly defined and responsibilities for which they can be held accountable. There should be recognised methods of assessing their success in achieving specified objectives.
The common ground in the debate is, of course, that parliamentary accountability remains fundamental. There is no question of the Government's washing their hands of that, as the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It is right that Members of Parliament should be able to question Ministers on Government policy. It is also right that Members should be able to follow up the cases of individual constituents. However, the thought behind the creation of agencies is the need to improve and to clarify the way in which that necessary accountability to Parliament is exercised. There is felt to be a need to get a clearer focus at the strategic level and an improvement of accountability at that level. The hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) is a former lecturer in politics and I think that he understands that point.
Ministers should be responsible to Parliament for the policies pursued by their Departments, for setting the targets and standards to be delivered, for allocating the resources and for ensuring that systems are in place to deliver the policies. The fact is, as I shall demonstrate, that at this level accountability to Parliament has been strengthened.
The trouble with the position taken by the right hon. Member is that he seems to think that accountability is simply a matter of being able to intervene in detailed and day-to-day management issues. That is a mistaken view and I am not breaking any new ground in asserting as much. To quote from a letter sent by Ministers to all Members of Parliament:
As you know there are continuing calls to avoid excessive centralisation of Government and to stop the growth of the civil service. The way to prevent over-centralisation is to foster a sense of local responsibility and accountability. But all too often we erode the position of local people by referring matters to Whitehall without any compensating reduction in effort locally.
The letter goes on to address the specific issue raised today by the right hon. Member for Gorton—ministerial accountability to Parliament. It says:
It is essential that we preserve entirely intact our Ministerial responsibility to Parliament. In particular, we fully accept that members will want to raise with Ministers any cases where they feel dissatisfied with the result of inquiries at local level or within independent agencies or which raise general issues of policy and perhaps serious complaints against local administration or conduct. But,


confident that this is in the best interest of both Members and their constituents, we do ask you to make initial enquiries at local level in all appropriate cases.
That letter, which sets out the Government's position in the debate so well, was not sent by any of my right hon. Friends. It was a letter sent jointly by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and the then Secretaries of State for Social Security and Employment in May 1977. In other words, it was sent by a Government of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished adornment as a Minister of State at the Department of Industry.
It is well-established practice, dating back to a Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was a member, that Members of Parliament should, in their constituents' interests, seek replies at the operational level. The creation of the so-called next steps agencies has clarified the responsibility for providing such replies by publishing details of chief executives' responsibilities in addition to the information that is available to Members of Parliament about local managers. But the accountability of those civil servants is still through Ministers to Parliament. It is still the case that, where an hon. Member is dissatisfied with the reply that he receives from the chief executive, he can raise that with the Minister. While the day-to-day operational responsibility is delegated to the chief executives, Ministers can override their decisions.
We have the necessary arrangements in place for Members of Parliament to pursue individual cases. But the challenge of the present arrangements is to the professionalism of Members of Parliament. As well as looking after individual constituents' cases—which must, of course, be a top priority—the challenge is to be able also to hold the Executive to account at the strategic level. The right hon. Gentleman knows from his time in government

that those are the matters which occupy Ministers. The question is, is he ready, as a Back Bencher, to enter the debate at that level?
For all agencies, framework documents are published, setting out aims and objectives, delegations and the specific areas of responsibility of Ministers and chief executives. Nothing like that has been available in the past. Each year Ministers publish the key targets that agencies have to meet—a clear statement of what we want those organisations to achieve. Nothing like that has been published in the past.
Where agencies serve the public, they have published, or will publish, charter standards, giving each individual customer a clear statement of the standard of service that they can expect. Again, nothing like that was published in the past.
In many cases, except where, for understandable reasons, commercial confidentiality or security prevent it, corporate and business plans are published. Again, nothing like that has been published in the past.
We have had the annual review of next steps. We have not had that before. The agencies also publish annual reports and accounts on the same basis as commercial organisations, providing Parliament and the public with the ability to scrutinise performance and the use of public funds.
We have increased the professionalism of management within Government and I hope that I will not be misunderstood if I urge the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman to redirect the campaign of which the right hon. Gentleman spoke to ensuring that the Mother of Parliaments makes use of all the new information about the operation—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-eight minutes past One o'clock.